 |
 |
Quoting "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]>: > I see this conclusion as RDA's, but not FRBR's. The FRBR report explicitly > says there can be a many-to-one relationship between Expressions and a > Manifestation (that is, a Manifestation can embody several Expressions), and > the V/FRBR project takes that at face value and does not impose the > additional restriction that a Manifestation contains an equal aggregate. RDA > may impose that restriction, but that's their implementation of FRBR, and > the V/FRBR project as *not* an RDA implementation doesn't feel bound by that > decision. I must say that no one from JSC used the term "equal aggregate" -- that was my interpretation of what I was being told. I don't think it's inaccurate, but I wouldn't want anyone to think they'd used those terms. I looked up the wording in FRBR and it says (in 3.3 on Aggregate and Component Entities): "The structure of the model, however, permits us to represent aggregate and component entities in the same way as we would represent entities that are viewed as integral units. That is to say that from a logical perspective the entity work, for example, may represent an aggregate of individual works brought together by an editor or compiler in the form of an anthology, a set of individual monographs brought together by a publisher to form a series, or a collection of private papers organized by an archive as a single fond. By the same token, the entity work may represent an intellectually or artistically discrete component of a larger work, such as a chapter of a report, a segment of a map, an article in a journal, etc. For the purposes of the model, entities at the aggregate or component level operate in the same way as entities at the integral unit level; they are defined in the same terms, they share the same characteristics, and they are related to one another in the same way as entities at the integral unit level." Now I need to study chapter 5 (relationships) of FRBR in greater detail... it doesn't seem to include the case that got me all confused in the first place (a book with prefaces and appendices and that includes a poem related to the author of the Work). One thing I am finding about FRBR (and want to think about more) is that one seems to come up with different conclusions depending on whether one works down from Work or works up from Item. The assumption that an aggregate in a bound volume is an Expression seems to make sense if you are working up from the Manifestation, but it makes less sense if you are working down from the Work. If decisions change based on the direction, then I think we have a real problem! kc -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet