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
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.
Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting "Beacom, Matthew" <[log in to unmask]>:
>> 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:
> 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:
> And I don't think your model allows that.
>> 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