Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[email protected]>:
A big mistake, if it means what we think it means, that RDA has decided
that a given Manifestation can not contain several Expressions.
I'm not sure they've actually stated that, although that seems to be
the implication. I think they intend for you to use the "contains"
and "contained in" relationship that can apply to any WEMI entity. And
this is where RDA's implementation of FRBR becomes difficult when I
try to think of how to present this to the user --
Work: Moby Dick
Expression: Moby Dick with preface, appendices, Hart Crane poem
Contains: (Work/Expression) preface
Contains: (Work/Expression) Hart Crane Poem
Manifestation: Moby Dick with preface, appendices, Hart Crane poem
?Contains: preface
?Contains: Hart Crane Poem
While there may be some logic here, it seems like this just reproduces
the "unit card" view that we have today, with a manifestation and
added entries. I don't know what entity the "contains" hangs off of,
or if it can be related both to the expression and the manifestation.
I need to think about this more, but I don't see how this lets us
provide a non-unit card view for users, which is what I was hoping we
were working toward. Although perhaps the idea is to build that on top
of the unit card view, after taking apart the records... It might wok,
I really want to try to model this. Wish we could get some folks
together for a 1/2 day somewhere and JUST DO IT.
kc
Riley, Jenn wrote:
What the RDA folks (that is, the folks
who have created RDA, the JSC members) said (some of them off-list to
me), is that if your manifestation is an aggregate, then your
Expression must be an equal aggregate. So the Expression is pretty
much one-to-one with the Manifestation. (And I think we were all
seeing a many-to-many.)
I see this conclusion as RDA's, but not FRBR's. The FRBR report explicitly
says there can be a many-to-one relationship between Expressions and a
Manifestation (that is, a Manifestation can embody several Expressions), and
the V/FRBR project takes that at face value and does not impose the
additional restriction that a Manifestation contains an equal aggregate. RDA
may impose that restriction, but that's their implementation of FRBR, and
the V/FRBR project as *not* an RDA implementation doesn't feel bound by that
decision.
Obviously I think that RDA has made a mistake in adding in a requirement
that "if your manifestation is an aggregate, then your Expression must be an
equal aggregate." But that's their business, I guess.
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
