Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>:
> Karen Coyle wrote:
> Well, I disagree with the "conclusion" on the RDA-L list, and said so
> there too!
> If you have a collection that includes Beethoven's Symphony A, and
> Beethoven's Symphony B, and Beethoven's Symphony A is also published
> separately on its own --- how can it not be a work? And how can it not
> be the same work in both places?
I think this becomes a question of how we express WEMI -- you can
always link from/to any WEMI using "contains" or "contained in" -- so
you can always link to all of the Works in an aggregate. What I would
like to achieve is for different decisions (like one community calling
the aggregate a Work/Expression and another focusing on the individual
works and linking those to a Manifestation) to not create incompatible
I've had this ill-formed notion for a while that we shouldn't actually
be creating WEMI as "things" -- that to do so locks us into a record
model and we get right back into some of the problems that we have
today in terms of exchanging records with anyone who doesn't do things
exactly our way. WEMI to me should be relationships, not structures.
If one community wants to gather them together for a particular
display, that shouldn't require that their data only express that
structure. I'm not sure FRBR supports this.
sound vague? it is -- I wish I could provide something more concrete,
but that's what I'm struggling with.
> This seems a pretty convincing argument to me?
> But it's not unique to musical recordings. If I have the Collected
> Works of Mark Twain, which includes the complete Tom Sawyer... how can
> Tom Sawyer not be a work? And how can the Tom Sawyer that's in the
> Collected Works NOT be the same work as the Tom Sawyer that's published
> If that was "the conclusion on the RDA-L list", it makes no sense to me.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net