 |
 |
Karen Coyle wrote: > >> And if the individual things inside the aggregate ALSO exist on their >> own independently (or in OTHER aggregations)... and you want to model >> that (which you may NOT want to spend time modelling in the individual >> cases, depending on context)... dont' those individual things inside >> the aggregate need to be modelled as expressions (which belong to a >> work) themselves? >> > > That was not the conclusion on the RDA-L list. The aggregate itself > was an expression. Then you could add a relationship from the > aggregate to the contained work, something like: > Well, I disagree with the "conclusion" on the RDA-L list, and said so there too! If you have a collection that includes Beethoven's Symphony A, and Beethoven's Symphony B, and Beethoven's Symphony A is also published seperately on it's own --- how can it not be a work? And how can it not be the same work in both places? This seems a pretty convincing argument to me? But it's not unique to musical recordings. If I have the Collected Works of Mark Twain, which includes the complete Tom Sawyer... how can Tom Sawyer not be a work? And how can the Tom Sawyer that's in the Collected Works NOT be the same work as the Tom Sawyer that's published seperately? If that was "the conclusion on the RDA-L list", it makes no sense to me. Jonathan