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



>
> Work is not defined in AACR or AACR2.

"Uniform title. 1. The particular title by which a work that has  
appeared under varying titles is to be identified for cataloguing  
purposes." (AACR2)

"The title of the work is the word, phrase, or group of characters  
naming the work. There may be one or more titles associated with a  
work. If the work has appeared under varying titles (differing in  
form, language, etc.), a bibliographic agency normally selects one of  
those titles as the basis of a ?uniform title? for purposes of  
consistency in naming and referencing the work." (FRBR_2008.pdf)

Work isn't defined (neither are any of WEMI), but the uniform title  
was/is a title representing the work. (And not to be confused with the  
uniform title *heading*, which is a uniform title plus qualifiers,  
like language, edition, etc. -- which seems to be something like an  
expression.)

I believe that author/uniform title authority records are being  
considered representations of works in some quarters (e.g.  
www.fla.fi/frbr05/McCallumTEXT.pdf).

In the Work entity, there is a title field, which is the title of the  
Work. So in the case of our Moby Dick, what would be the title of the  
Work? If you have different Works that represent, say, an 1852  
edition, a 1997 edition with a preface by Smith, and another that is a  
2003 edition with a preface by Jones, would they have the same work  
title? but different Work entity identifiers?

kc

>
> RDA, well, I only replied to your point about the FRBR WEMI/IMEW   
> model being read in both directions. There are a lot of implications  
>  for RDA, but I didn't address any of them. I really don't know   
> enough about the current state of RDA to express a useful opinion.   
> So I didn't.
>
> I think the model I described clearly does allow for the sort of   
> grouping of entities under a work heading that is represented by the  
>  openlibrary catalog or OCLC's FictionFinder, which is roughly   
> similar in the organization of display: work level information, then  
>  list of manifestations. I'd prefer a tree structure with work level  
>  information showing the work requested and a path to related works   
> that are derived but considered new works such as dramas, movies,   
> video games based on the work, and a path to expressions of the   
> work--in this case that would be by language of translation or   
> significant (i.e. scholarly) editions, then manifestations that   
> relate to the identified expressions. Additionally, I'd like to see   
> pathways to discover additional content that is popularly associated  
>  with the work; a good example of that would be illustrations.   
> Faceted browse tools would work well with this. And since desires   
> have no end, I'd also like to see pathways that lead to other relat!
>  ed works that are dependent on the work but are in a relation of   
> commentary on the work--books and articles about Moby Dick. Neither   
> openlibrary or FictionFinder do any of this now. But now I am no   
> longer talking about just the WEMI/IMEW model. And I'll stop.
>
> Matthew Beacom
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf  
>  Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Variations/FRBR project releases FRBR XML Schemas
>
> 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
>

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