LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  March 2010

CODE4LIB March 2010

Subject:

Re: Variations/FRBR project relases FRBR XML Schemas

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:38:51 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (180 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager