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

>
> Work: Moby Dick with preface, appendices, Hart Crane poem (I'd call   
> this an aggregate work)
>    Includes: (Work) preface (by someone)
>    Includes: (Work) Poem (by Hart Crane)
>    Includes: (Work) Moby Dick (by Herman Melville)
> Expression: Moby Dick with preface, appendices, Hart Crane poem
>    Includes: (Expression) preface (by someone)
>    Includes: (Expression) Poem (by Hart Crane)
>    Includes: (Expression) Moby Dick (by Herman Melville)
> Manifestation: Moby Dick with preface, appendices, Hart Crane poem
>    Contains: (Work/Expression) preface (by someone)
>    Contains: (Work/Expression) Poem (by Hart Crane)
>    Contains: (Work/Expression) Moby Dick (by Herman Melville)

How are the WEM of each separate resource here connected? In other  
words, do you have a Work entity defined for "preface" that links to  
an expression entity for "preface", and do they all have identifiers?  
(This really needs a diagram!) It seems like somewhere you need:

(Expression) preface --> expresses --> (Work) preface

That would have to exist outside of this particular description, right?

kc

>
> Other expression groups of the above could be those same works   
> translated to French or Russian or Chinese. One could think of   
> others, but they might all get more complicated than straight   
> translation.
>
> Other manifestation groups of the above could be a hard bound deluxe  
>  edition, a hard bound trade edition, a trade paper edition and a   
> mass market edition with the only physical differences being covers   
> and paper quality/size. Add a few proprietary e-versions, if you want.
>
> With regard to RDA, I think you are still working with a more or   
> less traditional catalog model that begins with inventory control of  
>  physical items in a collection (whether tangible or virtual,  
> whether  local or distributed.) The new aspects of RDA enhance our  
> ability to  connect the items to one another at the manifestation,  
> expression  and work levels.
>
> I don't think RDA goes as far as you want it to go. But I'm not sure  
>  there is any other model to follow.  One has to connect  
> abstractions  like work to actual items one can use. A reference to  
> a work without  some linkage to an item that embodies it is a dead  
> end.
>
> Matthew Beacom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf  
>  Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:10 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Variations/FRBR project relases FRBR XML Schemas
>
> Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> A big mistake, if it means what we think it means, that RDA has decided
>> that a given Manifestation can not contain several Expressions.
>
> I'm not sure they've actually stated that, although that seems to be
> the implication. I think they intend for you to  use the "contains"
> and "contained in" relationship that can apply to any WEMI entity. And
> this is where RDA's implementation of FRBR becomes difficult when I
> try to think of how to present this to the user --
>
> Work: Moby Dick
> Expression: Moby Dick with preface, appendices, Hart Crane poem
>    Contains: (Work/Expression) preface
>    Contains: (Work/Expression) Hart Crane Poem
> Manifestation: Moby Dick with preface, appendices, Hart Crane poem
>    ?Contains: preface
>    ?Contains: Hart Crane Poem
>
> While there may be some logic here, it seems like this just reproduces
> the "unit card" view that we have today, with a manifestation and
> added entries. I don't know what entity the "contains" hangs off of,
> or if it can be related both to the expression and the manifestation.
> I need to think about this more, but I don't see how this lets us
> provide a non-unit card view for users, which is what I was hoping we
> were working toward. Although perhaps the idea is to build that on top
> of the unit card view, after taking apart the records... It might wok,
> I really want to try to model this. Wish we could get some folks
> together for a 1/2 day somewhere and JUST DO IT.
>
> kc
>
>
>>
>> Riley, Jenn wrote:
>>>> 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 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.
>>>
>>> Obviously I think that RDA has made a mistake in adding in a requirement
>>> that "if your manifestation is an aggregate, then your Expression   
>>> must be an
>>> equal aggregate." But that's their business, I guess.
>>>
>>> Jenn
>>>
>>> ========================
>>> Jenn Riley
>>> Metadata Librarian
>>> Digital Library Program
>>> Indiana University - Bloomington
>>> Wells Library W501
>>> (812) 856-5759
>>> www.dlib.indiana.edu
>>>
>>> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>

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