Quoting "Beacom, Matthew" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Karen,
>
> You said:

>
> From the FRBR model we know that a manifestation is the embodiment   
> of an expression. From the manifestation, we infer another level of   
> thinking about the item in hand, another abstraction, the FRBR   
> expression. Going up the IMEW ladder, we see there is no gap where   
> the expression should be. The expression is simply an inference we   
> make from the manifestation according to the model. It's a   
> formality. According to the model, an expression for the   
> augmented/supplemented/whatevered Moby Dick exists. It must.  And   
> from the expression, let's call it "Moby Dick+a E", we infer the   
> work, "Moby Dick+a W", again, according to the model. So working up   
> the IMEW model, we see the augmented/supplemented/whatevered Moby   
> Dick that I'm calling "Moby Dick+a" is a work, an expression, a   
> manifestation and item.

I'll have to read through this a few more times, but this puts you in  
the "work of works" camp:  
http://www.ifla.org/en/events/frbr-working-group-on-aggregates

Unfortunately, I don't think this serves the user well, who may be  
looking for "Moby Dick" and not "Moby Dick+a". It's also not how Work  
is defined in AACR or RDA. So I'd like to understand what the user  
would see having done a search on Moby Dick. It seems like they'd see  
what we have today, which is a long list of different versions.  
Personally, I'd rather see something like:
   http://upstream.openlibrary.org/works/OL102749W/Moby_Dick
And I don't think your model allows that.

kc



>
> Coming down the WEMI model, we skipped over the expression level.    
> Why? I think it is because of a couple of things common to how we   
> think. First, when we use the WEMI model in this top-down direction,  
>  we tend to reify the abstractions and look for "real" instances of   
> them. Second, when we move down the WEMI model, we deduce the next   
> level from the "evidence" of the one above or evidence from the   
> physical world. Since the abstract levels of the FRBR WEMI model   
> provide no evidence for deduction, and there is no evidence of an   
> expression in the item, and all there is to rely on is the model's   
> claim that "there be expressions here," then we don't see the   
> expression as real. Working up from the item, the step at the   
> expression level is more clear and more clearly a formal part of the  
>  modeling process. It isn't a different decision about expression,  
> it  is a different view of the model that allows us to more clearly  
> see  the expression.
>
> Is this way of thinking, useful? It may be, when or if we think the   
> editorial work that created the augmented/etc. Moby Dick, is worth   
> noting and tracking.  Consider for instance the 150 the anniversary   
> edition of Moby Dick published by the Northwestern University Press   
> in 1991. It may make sense and provide some utility for readers for   
> cataloger's to consider this edition a different work than the   
> Norton Critical Edition, 2d edition, of Moby Dick. Because we like   
> to relate a work to a creator of the work when we can, I'll point   
> out the creator of each of these works is the editor or editorial   
> group that edited the text of Moby Dick-if they did that--and   
> compiled the edition.  And we might distinguish them by use of the   
> editor's name or the publisher's as we do in this case.
>
> Returning to "Moby Dick+a" for a moment, I want to point out a   
> complexity that I skipped over so far. There is more than one work   
> involved in "Moby Dick+a." The first is the edition itself, "Moby   
> Dick+a," a second is "Moby Dick," itself, a third would be the   
> introduction written for this edition, etc. It would be possible to   
> have the same work/expression of "Moby Dick" in two different   
> "edition-works" of Moby Dick. If the same text of "Moby Dick" is   
> simply repeated in a new context of apparatus--introductions,   
> afterwords, etc., one could have a work/expression "Moby Dick+a" and  
>  another "Moby Dick+b" that each contains the same work/expression,   
> "Moby Dick." What makes sense to me is noting and tracking both of   
> these--the edited augmentation and the core work. Other works within  
>  the augmented work may also be worth noting, etc., but how far one   
> would follow that path depends on the implementation goals.
>
> Matthew Beacom
>
>

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