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
>>
>>
>>     
>
>