Quoting Andrew Hankinson <[email protected]>:
This may be one area where FRBR is not exactly clear on the
directions its relationships take, or how extensive the cataloguing
should be.
One?! I'd say "one of..."
An album with Beethoven's 7, 8 & 9th Symphonies performed by the
London Philharmonic would be a manifestation containing three
independent expressions of these works, but the album wouldn't be a
work by itself. You can have dependent forward relationships, i.e.
"Work is an Expression contained in a Manifestation" but, as far as
I know, there's no way to specify that a manifestation containing
independent works as a separate work unto itself, and still stay
within the FRBR model. (please, correct me if I'm wrong...)
As I said, the discussion on the RDA-L list came to a different
conclusion, with folks involved directly in RDA and FRBR coming down
(one rather harshly to me offline) that a compilation is an expression
in itself. We didn't get so far as a compilation expression being one
to one with a work, but I would like to move this discussion to that
list, since the RDA experts are probably not following this list. I
guess what I'll do is post the link to Jenn's site on RDA-L, since I
haven't seen her mail there.
kc
In the textual realm, I would think an analogy would be a collection
of poems being considered as a collection of independent works,
since a poem could be contained in multiple anthologies and each
poem is often an independent intellectual entity. Same with a
collection of short stories. However, there are pronounced
differences in scale between music and text, since the possibilities
of different expressions of poetry and textual materials (e.g. an
audio version of William Shatner reading Leonard Nimoy's poetry) are
considerably smaller and less frequent than the the number of
different expressions possible for a musical work (e.g. the
performances of ten different orchestras, plus the number of
different print editions, performance versions, commentaries or DVD
versions would all be different expressions of Beethoven's 7th
Symphony.)
It further breaks down when considering things like the Encyclopedia
Britannica. Is the Encyclopedia the work, or is each individual
entry (sometimes quite lengthy and exhaustive) considered
independent works?
It seems to me that aggregating independent works into a singular
container expression is certainly expedient, but does not
necessarily conform to the letter of the FRBR law. If someone wants
to find a given poem and if it isn't listed as an independent work,
then they'll still need to (somehow) know the exact anthologies
that contain it, since the granularity stops at the level of the
container item and not at the level of the true "work". The answer
is to list it in a Table of Contents field, but then we're back at
square one where we depend on the indexing of the Table of Contents
fields to uncover the contents of an entity, rather than the FRBR
vision of having an explicitly defined and catalogued set of
relationships.
-Andrew
On 2010-03-16, at 6:30 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
If a text aggregate "is" an expression -- that expression must
belong to SOME work though, right?
And if the individual things inside the aggregate ALSO exist on
their own independently (or in OTHER aggregations)... and you want
to model that (which you may NOT want to spend time modelling in
the individual cases, depending on context)... dont' those
individual things inside the aggregate need to be modelled as
expressions (which belong to a work) themselves?
In general, Jenn has spent more time thinking about these things in
terms of music-related records than even the long discussions on
RDA-L, and I think has even authored a position paper for some body
on this subject?
I am guessing that in musical cataloging, the individual things
inside an aggregate often DO exist on their own independently or in
other aggregations, and for the needs of music patrons, that DOES
need to be modelled, and I don't see how to do it except to call
those things works of their own too? If Symphony X is a work,
then it's still a work when an expression of it is bound together
with Symphony's A, B, and C, right?
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
Jenn, I can't claim to have spent sufficient time looking at this,
but... are you on the RDA-L list? Because we just went through a
very long discussion there in which we concluded that a text
aggregate (possibly analogous to a sound recording aggregate) is
an expression, not a "set" of separate work/expression entities.
Your example implies the latter, with the aggregate being
described only at the manifestation level. (And now I'm confused
as to what the work would be in something like a text collection,
such as an anthology of poems. Would the anthology be a work?)
kc
Quoting "Riley, Jenn" <[email protected]>:
The Variations/FRBR project at Indiana University
(http://vfrbr.info) is pleased to announce the release of an
initial set of XML Schemas for the encoding of FRBRized
bibliographic data. The Variations/FRBR project aims to provide
a concrete testbed for the FRBR conceptual model, and these
XML Schemas represent one step towards that goal by
prescribing a concrete data format that instantiates the
conceptual model. Our project has been watching recent work to
represent the FRBR-based Resource Description and Access (RDA)
element vocabulary in RDF; however, due to the fact that this
work represents RDA data rather than FRBR data directly, and
that much metadata work in libraries currently (though perhaps
not permanently) operates in an XML rather than an RDF
environment, we concluded an XML-based format for FRBR data
directly was needed at this time. We view XML conforming to
these Schemas to be one possible external representation of
FRBRized d!
ata, and will be exploring other!
representations (including RDF) in the future. We define
"implementing FRBR," as the conceptual models described in the
companion FRBR and FRAD reports; at this time we are not actively
working on the model defined in the draft FRSAD report.
Perhaps the most notable feature of the Variations/FRBR XML
Schemas is their existence at three "levels": frbr, which
embodies faithfully only those features defined by the FRBR
and FRAD reports; efrbr, which adds additional features we
hope will make the data format more "useful"; and vfrbr, which
both contracts and extends the FRBR and FRAD models to create
a data representation optimized for the description of musical
materials and we hope provides a model for other
domain-specific applications of FRBR.
A User Guide with details on the structure of the Schemas and how
they relate to one another may be found at
http://vfrbr.info/schemas/1.0/UserGuide.pdf, and links to all
Schemas and documentation may be found at
http://vfrbr.info/schemas/1.0. We hope this Schema release will
lead to further discussion of FRBR implementation issues within
the community. Comments and questions on the Variations/FRBR
Schema release may be sent to [email protected].
Variations/FRBR is generously funded through a National
Leadership Grant from the Institute of Museum and Library
Services <http://www.imls.gov>.
(And a big kudos goes to the V/FRBR project team:
http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/people/index.shtml.
Thanks to all of you, and especially to Paul, Mark, and Ilias.)
Jenn
========================
Jenn Riley
Metadata Librarian
Digital Library Program
Indiana University - Bloomington
Wells Library W501
(812) 856-5759
www.dlib.indiana.edu
Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
