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
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.
> 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: