Katalogen som tolkningsredskap : Bibliografiska relationer i Resource Description and Access (RDA), med särskild hänsyn till operationaliseringsproblem

Sammanfattning: The new cataloging code Resource Description and Access (RDA) provides a system of instructions for recording relationships between related resources by means of a controlled vocabulary of relationship designators. The purpose of this two years master’s thesis in Archive, Library and Museum studies is to examine the construction of this system, as well as its theoretical foundation. One theoretical point of departure is the necessity of operational definitions for consistent identification of bibliographic relationships. Another such point of departure is that the theoretical model on which RDA is based (the FRBR model) is not a complete description of the biblio­graphic universe, but merely a limited representation of a set of assumptions about that universe. The thesis first examines Barbara B. Tillett's and Richard P. Smiraglia's theories and taxonomies of bibliographic relationships. The analysis shows that, in spite of their claims to provide a theoretical basis for consistent treatment of bibliographic relationships, neither Tillett nor Smiraglia offers operationally applicable definitions. The thesis then turns to RDA in order to examine the instructions and the list of relationship designators. After an introductory survey of RDA chapters 24 to 28, the possibility to record relationship designators at different entity levels is discussed. Remarkably, RDA neither provides instructions for how to choose between the entity levels, nor does it point out what this choice signifies. Finally, a selection of relationship designators representing content relationships is examined. The selected designators are analysed and compared to corresponding categories in literary theorist Gérard Genette's attempt to classify intertextual relationships. The analysis shows that though some of the selected designators are satisfactorily operationalized, most are not.