LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  March 2010

CODE4LIB March 2010

Subject:

Re: Variations/FRBR project releases FRBR XML Schemas

From:

Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:02:38 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (106 lines)

If you model "work of works" MobyDick+A, then you've simply got to make 
sure the "contains" relationship is there to the "simple" work "Moby 
Dick", right?

Then that would allow the particular manifestation of MobyDick+A to be 
grouped with all the "MobyDick"s, since the system knows it contains a 
manifestation of MobyDick in it.

What are we doing having this conversation on Code4Lib anyway, we're 
probably horribly boring and frustrating most of the list.

Jonathan

Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager