 |
 |
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 >> >> >> > >