765 original language entry

[CECSpecialistI]

https://github.com/uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA/blob/main/Working%20Documents/7XX.csv

[pan-zhuo]

Is it correct to record free translation in 765 (and freely translated in 767)? The Toolkit mapping thinks so but I doubt it. If not, do we need to account for them?

These are the only instances I find in OCLC that don't record 'free translation' or 'freely translated' in 700-730.

765$i (OCoLC)1114264456

775$i (OCoLC)24009193, (OCoLC)872105317, (OCoLC)872104662, (OCoLC)227898861

787$i (I assume this is correct.) (OCoLC)847985170, (OCoLC)953418747, (OCoLC)953418567

[pan-zhuo]

Translation is a relationship between expressions but 76x-78x link to manifestation records.

I can derive access points for expressions by combining values of $a and $s, or $a and $t, or using $t alone depending on the original main entry, but I wonder if we want to map the manifestation information as well. It may be like this:

[Expression1] translation of [Expression2] [Expression2] access point for expression [values of ($a, $s) | ($a, $t) | $t] [Expression2] manifestation of expression [Manifestation] [Manifestation] access point for manifestation [values of ($a, $t, $b, $m, $d, $h, $k, $n, $g)] [Manifestation] identifier for manifestation [value of $r | $u | $y | $z | $w] [Expression2] work expressed [Work] [Work] ISSN [value of $x]

$a, $t, $b, $m, $d, $h, $k, $n, $g follows the ISBD order, but where does $c fit in? I didn't find any information from either the LC or the OCLC MARC manual. Probably rarely used but we still need to decide if we want to map it.

Some subfields like $h (Physical description), $k (Series data for related item) are not considered by RDA as values to include in access points for manifestation (04.72.90.80). Is it required that we follow the string encoding scheme in RDA?

$o could be either a manifestation identifier or an item identifier. Again probably rarely used.

[CECSpecialistI]

These are all really good questions that might benefit from in-person discussion, especially at a meeting where @AdamSchiff is around to answer MARC questions. I can't remember ever cataloging a freely translated work/expression. @junghaelee catalogs more literature so may have more experience than I do. If nobody answers this asynchronously before Tuesday, I'll put it on the agenda for Wednesday morning. Thanks for asking fabulous questions, @pan-zhuo !

[CECSpecialistI]

Free translation = related work. Toolkit mapping is an error.

[lake44me]

Would rdam:P30266 | "has related expression of manifestation" be useful?
loses what the relationship is.

rdae:P20141 | "is translation of" | "Relates an expression to an expression whose language is modified to create a new expression that is different from another expression of the same work."

better

Although it could be possible that a translation made from a particular manifestation would have differences with a translation from a different manifestation of the same expression, because of differences in the manifestation (printer errors maybe). Thinking Bibles... but that's an angels on head of a pin question. Make a note on the manifestation that explains this...

[pan-zhuo]

It seems that the safest option is to map to rdam:P30048 "related manifestation of manifestation" with a "note on manifestation" rdam:P30137.

Mapping to rdae:P20141 "translation of" is likely to create duplicate expression IRIs.

[Manifestation IRI]-->rdam:P30048 (or rdamd:P30048)-->[a text string of an access point for a related manifestation] [Manifestation IRI]-->rdam:P30137-->["Translation of: " + access point]

[pennylenger]

@GordonDunsire Hi Gordon, the 765 is related to expression. Can we use the element translation of in some concise way to retain the relationship? In the first pass, subfields a, s, t, c, b, m, d, h, k, n, g are mapped together to related manifestation of manifestation by structured description to avoid expression IRI duplication problems, but lose the relationship translation of. And subfields r, u, y, z are mapped separately to has related manifestation of manifestation with the recording method being identifier. I am not sure how identifier works here. It is just recorded like a string. And subfield i is mapped to note on manifestation, which is to use note to clarify the relationship.

[GordonDunsire]

@pennylenger: This is related to the (https://github.com/uwlib-cams/MARC2RDA/issues/74) [041 discussion]. We cannot process this field for aggregate manifestations.

For a manifestation that embodies a single expression, we can mint an IRI for the original language expression if the language is recorded in 041. I note in the discussion that this expression can be related to a minted work and both have an appellation that is an access point, but there is no primary related manifestation for the minted expression. Field 765 provides that primary related manifestation. If this is linked to the output of 041, then the translation relationship is already retained.

The transform cannot make a direction distinction between the unstructured, structured, and identifier recording methods; all use the RDA datatype property. The distinction appears elsewhere in the RDA description set: structured descriptions and identifiers have an XML datatype and/or use an object property with an IRI; unstructured descriptions are untyped literals. Structured descriptions and identifiers are distinguished by data provenance: structured descriptions have a value vocabulary term, an access point, or an associated string encoding scheme; identifiers have an identifier scheme.