Quoting Andrew Hankinson <[log in to unmask]>:
> 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" <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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 [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>> 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
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
|
