Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>:
> If a text aggregate "is" an expression -- that expression must belong
> to SOME work though, right?
Right, and this is where I get a bit confused. Can an aggregate of
poems be work? Honestly, I have trouble making sense of that.
> 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?
That was not the conclusion on the RDA-L list. The aggregate itself
was an expression. Then you could add a relationship from the
aggregate to the contained work, something like:
Big Book of Poems -- contains -- Expression: Leaves of Grasses --
Expresses -- Work: Leaves of Grass
> 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
That makes sense to me in terms of music as well as text. And as we
were discussing text it seemed to me that musical recordings would be
the big test, because they are predominantly independent expressions
that happen to be gathered into a compilation (probably as much about
marketing as anything else).
So that's why I wondered if the music folks (read: Jenn) had followed
the RDA-L discussion, which took a different direction when the
discussion was about text.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net