RDA-L

Melissa,

This is my personal cataloger opinion only--I think the 2nd condition option "Record a statement that is related to the original manifestation as a statement for the original manifestation" means that you record a statement about the original manifestation that appears in the reproduction as an instance  of Manifestation: manifestation  statement or subtype. So  in MARC, you could record that in field 881. However, when it comes to fixed field values like the date in the 008 field, then I think you can do the same thing you do now, e.g., use code "r" and use the  reproduction date in date 1 and the original date in date 2. That is because those field fields are not unstructured description.  Then I think you can follow that line of thinking about unstructured description to guide the rest of your cataloging decisions. If you want to talk more about this with me, you can email me  at my work email  (jamesk@oclc.org).

Melissa, Kate

The conditions are immediately preceded by the guidance:

"A statement that relates to the original manifestation is not treated as a statement of the reproduction manifestation."

If we refer to a statement that relates to the original as "original statement", it is only treated as a manifestation statement of the original manifestation.

If the original statement is included in the reproduction,  typically when a title page, etc. is photographically or digitally reproduced, then it becomes a "reproduced statement" in the reproduction, and should not be treated as a manifestation statement of the reproduction manifestation.

RDA assumes that each manifestation is described separately and each has its own set of manifestation statements, created at the same time as the manifestation is published or produced. There will be obvious differences in the statements about publication details, but there may be differences in statements of series, copyright, identifier, etc. I just searched Hathi Trust and see that there are differences in statements of title as well; see Pride and prejudice for an example. The digital manifestation carries the statement "Pride & prejudice / with coloured illus. by C.E. Brock" while the original states "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY R. BRIMLEY JOHNSON" and "PRIDE & PREJUDICE BY JANE AUSTEN". The reproduction is not an issue of the Everyman Library, but it is an issue of the HathiTrust Digital Library, etc.

We should not assume we know the intentions of the publisher or producer. If the digital reproduction carries a transcription of the original statement of title and responsibility we assume that it is intended to be a manifestation statement for the reproduction, but if it does not we should not make that assumption, even if there is no other statement of title, etc. except what is reproduced.

So the answer to Q3 is that the option does not permit the recording of manifestation statements for the original as manifestation statements of the reproduction. However, the source of values of attributes for the reproduction, other than manifestation statement attributes, can include the manifestation statements reproduced from the original: the source of attribute values can be anything (with the exception of the source of manifestation statement attributes).

Gordon,

FYI, there are two different manifestations linked from that catalog record which caused me great confusion. This link is for a reproduction of a manifestation with a title page that says, "PRIDE & PREJUDICE by JANE AUSTEN With twenty-four coloured illustrations by C.E. BROCK":  Manifestation 1 with Brock illustrations

This link is for a reproduction of a manifestation that says on the series title page "EVERYMAN'S LIBRARY EDITED BY ERNEST RHYS FICTION PRIDE AND PREJUDICE WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY R. BRIMLEY JOHNSON" and on the book title page "PRIDE & PREJUDICE BY JANE AUSTEN": Manifestation 2 with no illustrations by Brock

This mistake in linking two different manifestations to the same catalog record actually does an excellent job of demonstrating my point that it serves user tasks to use manifestation statements appearing in the digitized manifestations to help the user find and identify the particular manifestation they are looking for.  It is clear that these reproductions are not the same manifestation and they are reproductions of two different manifestations once you start looking at the pages--the type is different, the pagination is different (xiv,  336 pages for Manifestation 1 and viii, 397 pages for Manifestation 2), etc.

The statement you cited is  "Pride & prejudice / with coloured illus. by C.E. Brock." That information is in the catalog record, but it does not appear in the digitized book. It appears on the webpage that contains the catalog record and linked to both digitized manifestations and yes, one could catalog that, but that webpage is not a reproduction of a manifestation: Catalog Record: Pride & prejudice

The more common situation is that a cataloger is describing the digitized version of Pride and Prejudice and they will be using information on the digitized pages and file metadata as  sources of information. The definition of manifestation statement is "A statement appearing in a manifestation and deemed to be significant for users to understand how the manifestation represents itself." As we all know, the purpose of the manifestation statement is to provide information to the user about how the resource represents itself, with no expectation of veracity of data. This statement is within the digitized manifestation thus to record it follows the principle of representation and supports the user tasks find and identify. 

I saw the sentence in  Guidance: Manifestation statements that you quoted, but I assumed it meant something different. I assumed it meant that manifestation statements describing the original manifestation could not be used to describe the reproduction because not all reproductions contain reproductions of title pages, etc., from the original. Thus, the cataloger has to consider how the reproduction  represents itself when determining whether to record manifestation statements to describe it. I realize there is a strong chance that you wrote the statement you quoted so you would know better than I want you intended. However, regardless of intent of that statement there is nothing in the definition of manifestation statement that would convince me that recording this as an instance of manifestation statement for the reproduction that has the Brock illustrations does not satisfy user tasks and is appropriate according to the element definition: "PRIDE & PREJUDICE by JANE AUSTEN With twenty-four coloured illustrations by C.E. BROCK."

In addition to digital reproductions, we may have photocopies that are reproductions. In such cases, the photocopy may have it's own title page added before the photocopied material or may only contain the photocopy of the original title page. Again, the principle of representation is followed by recording a manifestation statement containing data that is found on that photocopied title page. We tell the user it is a photocopy with other methods, including providing a relationship to the original manifestation.

Kate

I will leap into the fray with some historical dynamics.

The primary reproductions of concern during AACR's primacy were microforms. Implicit in the examples under AACR2's Chapter 11, particularly at 11.4D was the principle that one described the manifestation in hand -- the microform manifestation bore its own identification of the microform publisher, place of publication, and date of publication. These were to be used as such elements. Then under 11.7B was the guidance for describing the original as a note. Original RDA, and presumably Official RDA, follow this principle of representation for the item in hand. The MARC Bibliographic format supports a structured representation of the Note for the original in field 534 Original Version Note.

The LCRIs for AACR2 and then LC-PCC PSes for Original RDA however, reversed the guidance from the standard. Under the guidance of these policy documents, one describes the reproduction as if one had the original in one's hand -- using the statements pertaining to the original, and then makes a note about the reproduction. The MARC Bibliographic format supports a structured representation of the Note for the reproduction in field 533 Reproduction Note. 

How these dynamics play out for the LC-PCC cataloging community will be specified in the new guidance being created to support Official RDA -- updated LC-PCC PSes and the new MGDs. As presently articulated, it appears that the historic reversal of the standard's guidance will be sustained, at least in the interim:

I share all of this history because I thought this pair of conditions was allowing for this latter treatment to be part of the Official RDA standard. As I consider the conditions more closely, my revised interpretation is that they are both addressing the same dynamic with the same principle -- describe the reproduction in hand with its own statements, etc., and then provide data about the original. The difference in the conditions appears to be in supporting two modes of recording -- either through the conveyance of a free form note or through the conveyance of the actual statement from the original (presumably as presented by the reproduced content, e.g. reproduced title page).

I will confess though that the syntax of the technical language used to articulate Official RDA's guidance continues to perplex and challenge, so caveat lector (or in modern parlance, YMMV).

I also had not contemplated the use of MARC Bibliographic format field 881 in this context, which Kate James has described and reminded me of. I might have assumed that in this case the Manifestation statements being recorded were those applicable to the reproduction as such. But the statements applicable to the original are also present in the reproduced content, so maybe field 881 would be doubled up in this scenario. As field 881 is not yet widely used (pending formal adoption of Official RDA by the LC-PCC community), guidance on this point may be forthcoming as the relevant MGD on Reproductions-Photocopies, from which the previously cited guidance was drawn,  does not seem to cover field 881's use. 

RDA manifestation statement elements are an implementation of LRM-E4-A4 "Manifestation statement". The LRM attribute was not present in the FR family of conceptual models; it did not appear in the original RDA, and  therefore only appears in official RDA.

Official RDA essentially says:

If the manifestation being described is a reproduction of another manifestation, then either record statements that appear in the reproduced manifestation as notes for the manifestation being described, or as manifestation statements in the (separate) description set of the reproduced manifestation.

Official RDA does not provide a third option of recording statements that appear in the reproduced manifestation as manifestation statements for the manifestation being described.

For the example I gave, the related catalog record describes the illustrated manifestation, but the "Locate a print version" and "Item link" references each have two values, one for the illustrated manifestation/item and one for the non-illustrated manifestation/item.

This is typical of an error in a metadata merge process.

I am treating the webpage that contains the reproduced item and access controls and functions as the manifestation being described; the access controls, etc. constitute a wrapper for the content. The full-screen function that displays only the digitized item is integral to the manifestation, and I can find no way of accessing the reproduction without it.

The webpage/manifestation of the non-illustrated version has an erroneous manifestation statement of title and responsibility, while the webpage/manifestation of the illustrated has statement of title and responsibility that is not untrue.

I would therefore describe the digitized non-illustrated manifestation along the lines of:

Manifestation

has manifestation title and responsibility statement: "Pride & prejudice / with coloured illus. by C.E. Brock"
has manifestation edition statement: "Version: 2023-02-26 18:51 UTC,
OwnerID: 27021597765621635-19 / Seq: 15"
has manifestation manufacture statement "Digitized by Google"
has manifestation statement "Original from Harvard University"
has note on manifestation: "The manifestation statement of title and responsbility pertains to another manifestation and is erroneous."
has note on manifestation: "The item that is digitized has the manifestation statements 'Pride and prejudice with an introduction by R. Brimley Johnson', 'Pride & prejudice by Jane Austen', "London: published by J M Dent & Co and in New York by E P. Dutton & Co', First edition ... 1906, Reprinted ... 1907, and 'Everyman's Library edited by Ernest Rhys'."
has publisher corporate body: "HathiTrust"
has date of publication: '2023'
has manufacturer corporate body "Google (Firm)"
has contributor person of text "Johnson, R. Brimley (Reginald Brimley), 1867-1932"
has work manifested: "Austen, Jane, 1775-1817. | Pride and prejudice"

has carrier type: "online resource"

has Uniform Resource Locator "https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044079556437"

The values of manifestation statement and note elements can only be unstructured descriptions. The Toolkit says "The data in an unstructured description can only be processed reliably to extract keywords".

I think the RDA approach is clearer and more useful than including statements from the digitized manifestation.