Joe Hourcle wrote:
>
> The group's two proposals were to model aggregates as works, or as 
> manifestatons, so RDA seems to be on their own modeling them as 
> expressions:
>   

See, this is what I don't understa.d "As works, or as manifestations"??  
In the FRBR model, every single manifestation belongs to _some_ Work, 
does it not?  So I don't understand how those can be alternatives. Or 
was the proposal to change this? So some manifestations exist "free 
floating" belonging to no work at all? (By "belonging to" in FRBR terms 
of art, I mean in the FRBR model, every manifestation is "the embodiment 
of" SOME expression, which is "the realization of" SOME Work. Whether 
that expression or work are yet described or not, they're there in the 
model.  Was the proposal really to change this, so some manifestations 
are  by definition "the embodiment of" no expression at all, not even an 
expression that has yet to have an identifier assigned to it? That seems 
horribly mistaken to me).

I guess I need to find time to read the report.

Jonathan

>  	http://www.ifla.org/en/events/frbr-working-group-on-aggregates
>
> I don't know what happened at the August 2009 meeting, though.  William 
> Denton had a breakdown of the August 2008 meeting, which explained 
> some of the issues that they were considering:
>
>  	http://www.frbr.org/2008/08/18/working-group-on-aggregates
>
>
> -Joe
>
>