Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>
>   
>> So there's no way to "call an aggregate a Work/Expression" _instead of_
>> a manifestation, if that aggregate is an actual physical item in your
>> hand.
>>     
>
> No, no one said "instead of". What the RDA folks (that is, the folks  
> who have created RDA, the JSC members) said (some of them off-list to  
> me), is that if your manifestation is an aggregate, then your  
> Expression must be an equal aggregate. So the Expression is pretty  
> much one-to-one with the Manifestation. (And I think we were all  
> seeing a many-to-many.)
>   
I think the confusion is that I believe there are MORE THAN ONE   "wemi" 
element involved in an agregate.

Collected Works of John Doe  (Work1)
    expressed by:  Collected Works of John Doe (first edition) (Expression1)
        manifested by: Collected Works of John Doe PDF version  
(manifestation1)
             ---> CONTAINS/AGGREGATES
                Does and Deers by John Doe (Work2)
                     expressed by: Does and Deers by John Doe (only 
edition that ever existed) (Expression2)
                         manifested by: Does and Deers by John Doe [as 
included in the Collected Works (Work1)] (manifestation2)
                Badgers by John Doe  (Work3)
                      etc

So, yes, the Work that is _realized by_ Collected Works of John Doe 
(expression) is an aggregate too.   But meanwhile, the aggregate 
_includes_ other Works, that's what makes it an aggregate.

This is not neccesarily "official" FRBR, official FRBR for dealing with 
aggregates is still somewhat in flux, how to deal with aggregates is 
still somewhat unstated.  This above way is, I argue, _not incompatible_ 
with official FRBR, and is, I argue, the _most sane_, _most useful_, way 
to deal with aggregates in FRBR.

Note that any individual node in that tree above _may or may not_ 
actually be modelled/fleshed out in a given system/corpus.  But the 
nodes are there waiting to be fleshed out by someone who needs the 
semantic information expressed.  For instance,  a given system with 
Collected Works of John Doe in it may not bother drawing out the 
relationships to the _other_ Works that are "contained in" it. (Just as 
under current cataloging, you may not create 700s for the analytics).   
If those aren't fleshed out, then the entity labelled manifestation2 
above -- representing Does and Deers manifested in a particular editiong 
of the Collected Works -- may not have been created yet anywhere.  But 
it's waiting to be created if someone wants to analyze and record the 
relationship.  Alternatively, If Does and Deers never was printed 
anywhere else, than a Work record for it doesn't even exist yet -- and 
may never be created, unless someone needs to make assertions about 
"Does and Deers" as an individual entity. 

That is my argument. I'm not saying this is what the FRBR report tells 
you you _have_ to do with aggregates. I'm saying the FRBR report does 
not tell you what to do with aggregates, this treatment is _consistent_ 
with it however, and this treatment is what leads to the most sane, 
useful modelling, easiest to merge assertions from different systems 
into a whole, etc.

Jonathan
   


> This is what I was told (off-list):
>
> "the additional
> bibliographies or other intellectual or artistic content are viewed
> as parts of a new expression - not just new pieces for the
> manifestation ... - it's useful to declare expression level changes to
> facilitate collocation and make distinctions, but sometimes such
> distinctions aren't necessary and we can collocate at the work
> level.  Please don't start people getting confused with throwing in
> expression level elements at the manifestation level."
>
> So those were my marching orders! (And I don't see how anyone could be  
> more confused than I am.) But a reprint of Moby Dick with a new  
> preface or bibliography becomes a new expression. In crude MARC terms,  
> every time the 245 $c changes, you've got a new expression, unless you  
> determine that it's something really insignificant. And I would guess  
> that you can link the Expression to one or more Works, as you wish,  
> except that the FRBR diagram shows that expressions can only relate to  
> one Work. (See, no one could be more confused than I am!)
>
> kc
>
>
>
>   
>> If people on the RDA-L list came to a "consensus" that is
>> otherwise... I suspect you misunderstood them, but otherwise their
>> consensus does not match any interpretation of FRBR I have previously
>> encountered, or any that makes sense to me.
>>
>> You've got a manifestation whether you like it or not.   The question
>> is how much "authority work" are you going to do on identifying the
>> Expression and Work it belongs to.  If you don't do much because it
>> doesn't make sense for you to do so, maybe it starts out modelled as a
>> manifestation just belonging to a "dummy" Expression/Work that contains
>> only that Manifestation. Some other cataloger somewhere else does the
>> "authority" work to flesh out an Expression and/or Work that maybe
>> contains multiple manifestations or maybe doesn't. Is your data
>> incompatible?  Not really, it can be merged simply by recognizing that
>> your "dummy" Expression/Work can be merged into their more fleshed out
>> one.
>>
>> There's also a question of how much "authority work" you want to do on
>> the _contents_ of the aggregate. Maybe you don't want to spend any time
>> on that "analytical" task at all, and your record does not reveal that
>> the item in your hand IS an aggregate, it does not actually expose
>> relationships to the other Works/Expressions contained within. It might
>> have a transcribed table of contents as an attribute only, not as a
>> relationship to other entities.  Later some other cataloger fleshes
>> that out. Here too, that other catalogers extra work can be
>> (conceptually at least) easily "merged in" to your record, there is no
>> incompatibility.
>>
>> [If two different catalogers/communities decide that two different
>> Works contain _different_ manifestations, and violently disagree, then
>> THAT's an incompatibility that's harder to resolve and is a legitimate
>> concern.  But that's not what we have in this example, which is quite
>> straightforward.]
>>
>> While to some extent I sympathize with your inchoate thoughts about
>> modelling WEMI being a mistake, and we've talked about that before --
>> ultimately I still disagree. It is appropriate to use an
>> entity-relation-attribute model to come up with the kind of explicit
>> and formal model of our data that we both agree we need.  It's a
>> conventional, mature, and well-tested modelling approach (I wouldn't
>> want to pin all our eggs to RDF experimentation that at least arguably
>> does not rely on an entity model).  You can't have an entity model
>> without entities.   The FRBR WMI (and more debatably E) entities are
>> the ones that clearly come out of a formalization of our 100 year
>> tradition of cataloging, meaning there's probably something to them AND
>> that using them makes retroactively applying the model to our 100 years
>> worth of legacy data is more feasible (and BOTH of those facts are
>> totally legitimate grounds for decision making.  And the decision has
>> already been made too, although in the case of FRAD I'd still be
>> reluctant to accept it as a "done deal", but in the case of FRBR, it is
>> much better done, a much more useful and accurate abstraction of our
>> cataloging tradition). Should we take this back to RDA-L (where I'll
>> probably begin paying only intermittent attention to it again; for my
>> purposes/interests, there is a lot of 'noise' on RDA-L).
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> 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
>>>> seperately?
>>>>
>>>> If that was "the conclusion on the RDA-L list", it makes no sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>       
>
>