 |
 |
Quoting "Beacom, Matthew" <[log in to unmask]>: > Karen, > > You said: > > From the FRBR model we know that a manifestation is the embodiment > of an expression. From the manifestation, we infer another level of > thinking about the item in hand, another abstraction, the FRBR > expression. Going up the IMEW ladder, we see there is no gap where > the expression should be. The expression is simply an inference we > make from the manifestation according to the model. It's a > formality. According to the model, an expression for the > augmented/supplemented/whatevered Moby Dick exists. It must. And > from the expression, let's call it "Moby Dick+a E", we infer the > work, "Moby Dick+a W", again, according to the model. So working up > the IMEW model, we see the augmented/supplemented/whatevered Moby > Dick that I'm calling "Moby Dick+a" is a work, an expression, a > manifestation and item. I'll have to read through this a few more times, but this puts you in the "work of works" camp: http://www.ifla.org/en/events/frbr-working-group-on-aggregates Unfortunately, I don't think this serves the user well, who may be looking for "Moby Dick" and not "Moby Dick+a". It's also not how Work is defined in AACR or RDA. So I'd like to understand what the user would see having done a search on Moby Dick. It seems like they'd see what we have today, which is a long list of different versions. Personally, I'd rather see something like: http://upstream.openlibrary.org/works/OL102749W/Moby_Dick And I don't think your model allows that. kc > > Coming down the WEMI model, we skipped over the expression level. > Why? I think it is because of a couple of things common to how we > think. First, when we use the WEMI model in this top-down direction, > we tend to reify the abstractions and look for "real" instances of > them. Second, when we move down the WEMI model, we deduce the next > level from the "evidence" of the one above or evidence from the > physical world. Since the abstract levels of the FRBR WEMI model > provide no evidence for deduction, and there is no evidence of an > expression in the item, and all there is to rely on is the model's > claim that "there be expressions here," then we don't see the > expression as real. Working up from the item, the step at the > expression level is more clear and more clearly a formal part of the > modeling process. It isn't a different decision about expression, > it is a different view of the model that allows us to more clearly > see the expression. > > Is this way of thinking, useful? It may be, when or if we think the > editorial work that created the augmented/etc. Moby Dick, is worth > noting and tracking. Consider for instance the 150 the anniversary > edition of Moby Dick published by the Northwestern University Press > in 1991. It may make sense and provide some utility for readers for > cataloger's to consider this edition a different work than the > Norton Critical Edition, 2d edition, of Moby Dick. Because we like > to relate a work to a creator of the work when we can, I'll point > out the creator of each of these works is the editor or editorial > group that edited the text of Moby Dick-if they did that--and > compiled the edition. And we might distinguish them by use of the > editor's name or the publisher's as we do in this case. > > Returning to "Moby Dick+a" for a moment, I want to point out a > complexity that I skipped over so far. There is more than one work > involved in "Moby Dick+a." The first is the edition itself, "Moby > Dick+a," a second is "Moby Dick," itself, a third would be the > introduction written for this edition, etc. It would be possible to > have the same work/expression of "Moby Dick" in two different > "edition-works" of Moby Dick. If the same text of "Moby Dick" is > simply repeated in a new context of apparatus--introductions, > afterwords, etc., one could have a work/expression "Moby Dick+a" and > another "Moby Dick+b" that each contains the same work/expression, > "Moby Dick." What makes sense to me is noting and tracking both of > these--the edited augmentation and the core work. Other works within > the augmented work may also be worth noting, etc., but how far one > would follow that path depends on the implementation goals. > > Matthew Beacom > > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet