Quoting "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]>:


> I see this conclusion as RDA's, but not FRBR's. The FRBR report explicitly
> says there can be a many-to-one relationship between Expressions and a
> Manifestation (that is, a Manifestation can embody several Expressions), and
> the V/FRBR project takes that at face value and does not impose the
> additional restriction that a Manifestation contains an equal aggregate. RDA
> may impose that restriction, but that's their implementation of FRBR, and
> the V/FRBR project as *not* an RDA implementation doesn't feel bound by that
> decision.

I must say that no one from JSC used the term "equal aggregate" --  
that was my interpretation of what I was being told. I don't think  
it's inaccurate, but I wouldn't want anyone to think they'd used those  
terms.

I looked up the wording in FRBR and it says (in 3.3 on Aggregate and  
Component Entities):

"The structure of the model, however, permits us to represent  
aggregate and component entities in the same way as we would represent  
entities that are viewed as integral units. That is to say that from a  
logical perspective the entity work, for example, may represent an  
aggregate of individual works brought together by an editor or  
compiler in the form of an anthology, a set of individual monographs  
brought together by a publisher to form a series, or a collection of  
private papers organized by an archive as a single fond. By the same  
token, the entity work may represent an intellectually or artistically  
discrete component of a larger work, such as a chapter of a report, a  
segment of a map, an article in a journal, etc. For the purposes of  
the model, entities at the aggregate or component level operate in the  
same way as entities at the integral unit level; they are defined in  
the same terms, they share the same characteristics, and they are  
related to one another in the same way as entities at the integral  
unit level."

Now I need to study chapter 5 (relationships) of FRBR in greater  
detail... it doesn't seem to include the case that got me all confused  
in the first place (a book with prefaces and appendices and that  
includes a poem related to the author of the Work).

One thing I am finding about FRBR (and want to think about more) is  
that one seems to come up with different conclusions depending on  
whether one works down from Work or works up from Item. The assumption  
that an aggregate in a bound volume is an Expression seems to make  
sense if you are working up from the Manifestation, but it makes less  
sense if you are working down from the Work. If decisions change based  
on the direction, then I think we have a real problem!

kc


-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet