 |
 |
Quoting Andrew Hankinson <[log in to unmask]>: > This may be one area where FRBR is not exactly clear on the > directions its relationships take, or how extensive the cataloguing > should be. One?! I'd say "one of..." > > An album with Beethoven's 7, 8 & 9th Symphonies performed by the > London Philharmonic would be a manifestation containing three > independent expressions of these works, but the album wouldn't be a > work by itself. You can have dependent forward relationships, i.e. > "Work is an Expression contained in a Manifestation" but, as far as > I know, there's no way to specify that a manifestation containing > independent works as a separate work unto itself, and still stay > within the FRBR model. (please, correct me if I'm wrong...) As I said, the discussion on the RDA-L list came to a different conclusion, with folks involved directly in RDA and FRBR coming down (one rather harshly to me offline) that a compilation is an expression in itself. We didn't get so far as a compilation expression being one to one with a work, but I would like to move this discussion to that list, since the RDA experts are probably not following this list. I guess what I'll do is post the link to Jenn's site on RDA-L, since I haven't seen her mail there. kc > > In the textual realm, I would think an analogy would be a collection > of poems being considered as a collection of independent works, > since a poem could be contained in multiple anthologies and each > poem is often an independent intellectual entity. Same with a > collection of short stories. However, there are pronounced > differences in scale between music and text, since the possibilities > of different expressions of poetry and textual materials (e.g. an > audio version of William Shatner reading Leonard Nimoy's poetry) are > considerably smaller and less frequent than the the number of > different expressions possible for a musical work (e.g. the > performances of ten different orchestras, plus the number of > different print editions, performance versions, commentaries or DVD > versions would all be different expressions of Beethoven's 7th > Symphony.) > > It further breaks down when considering things like the Encyclopedia > Britannica. Is the Encyclopedia the work, or is each individual > entry (sometimes quite lengthy and exhaustive) considered > independent works? > > It seems to me that aggregating independent works into a singular > container expression is certainly expedient, but does not > necessarily conform to the letter of the FRBR law. If someone wants > to find a given poem and if it isn't listed as an independent work, > then they'll still need to (somehow) know the exact anthologies > that contain it, since the granularity stops at the level of the > container item and not at the level of the true "work". The answer > is to list it in a Table of Contents field, but then we're back at > square one where we depend on the indexing of the Table of Contents > fields to uncover the contents of an entity, rather than the FRBR > vision of having an explicitly defined and catalogued set of > relationships. > > -Andrew > > On 2010-03-16, at 6:30 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > >> If a text aggregate "is" an expression -- that expression must >> belong to SOME work though, right? >> >> 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? >> >> In general, Jenn has spent more time thinking about these things in >> terms of music-related records than even the long discussions on >> RDA-L, and I think has even authored a position paper for some body >> on this subject? >> I am guessing that in musical cataloging, the individual things >> inside an aggregate often DO exist on their own independently or in >> other aggregations, and for the needs of music patrons, that DOES >> need to be modelled, and I don't see how to do it except to call >> those things works of their own too? If Symphony X is a work, >> then it's still a work when an expression of it is bound together >> with Symphony's A, B, and C, right? >> Jonathan >> >> Karen Coyle wrote: >>> Jenn, I can't claim to have spent sufficient time looking at this, >>> but... are you on the RDA-L list? Because we just went through a >>> very long discussion there in which we concluded that a text >>> aggregate (possibly analogous to a sound recording aggregate) is >>> an expression, not a "set" of separate work/expression entities. >>> Your example implies the latter, with the aggregate being >>> described only at the manifestation level. (And now I'm confused >>> as to what the work would be in something like a text collection, >>> such as an anthology of poems. Would the anthology be a work?) >>> >>> kc >>> >>> >>> Quoting "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]>: >>> >>> >>>> The Variations/FRBR project at Indiana University >>>> (http://vfrbr.info) is pleased to announce the release of an >>>> initial set of XML Schemas for the encoding of FRBRized >>>> bibliographic data. The Variations/FRBR project aims to provide >>>> a concrete testbed for the FRBR conceptual model, and these >>>> XML Schemas represent one step towards that goal by >>>> prescribing a concrete data format that instantiates the >>>> conceptual model. Our project has been watching recent work to >>>> represent the FRBR-based Resource Description and Access (RDA) >>>> element vocabulary in RDF; however, due to the fact that this >>>> work represents RDA data rather than FRBR data directly, and >>>> that much metadata work in libraries currently (though perhaps >>>> not permanently) operates in an XML rather than an RDF >>>> environment, we concluded an XML-based format for FRBR data >>>> directly was needed at this time. We view XML conforming to >>>> these Schemas to be one possible external representation of >>>> FRBRized d! > ata, and will be exploring other! >>>> representations (including RDF) in the future. We define >>>> "implementing FRBR," as the conceptual models described in the >>>> companion FRBR and FRAD reports; at this time we are not actively >>>> working on the model defined in the draft FRSAD report. >>>> Perhaps the most notable feature of the Variations/FRBR XML >>>> Schemas is their existence at three "levels": frbr, which >>>> embodies faithfully only those features defined by the FRBR >>>> and FRAD reports; efrbr, which adds additional features we >>>> hope will make the data format more "useful"; and vfrbr, which >>>> both contracts and extends the FRBR and FRAD models to create >>>> a data representation optimized for the description of musical >>>> materials and we hope provides a model for other >>>> domain-specific applications of FRBR. >>>> >>>> A User Guide with details on the structure of the Schemas and how >>>> they relate to one another may be found at >>>> http://vfrbr.info/schemas/1.0/UserGuide.pdf, and links to all >>>> Schemas and documentation may be found at >>>> http://vfrbr.info/schemas/1.0. We hope this Schema release will >>>> lead to further discussion of FRBR implementation issues within >>>> the community. Comments and questions on the Variations/FRBR >>>> Schema release may be sent to [log in to unmask] >>>> >>>> Variations/FRBR is generously funded through a National >>>> Leadership Grant from the Institute of Museum and Library >>>> Services <http://www.imls.gov>. >>>> >>>> (And a big kudos goes to the V/FRBR project team: >>>> http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/vfrbr/people/index.shtml. >>>> Thanks to all of you, and especially to Paul, Mark, and Ilias.) >>>> >>>> Jenn >>>> >>>> ======================== >>>> Jenn Riley >>>> Metadata Librarian >>>> Digital Library Program >>>> Indiana University - Bloomington >>>> Wells Library W501 >>>> (812) 856-5759 >>>> www.dlib.indiana.edu >>>> >>>> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet