 |
 |
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>: > Karen Coyle wrote: > > 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 > separately on its own --- how can it not be a work? And how can it not > be the same work in both places? I think this becomes a question of how we express WEMI -- you can always link from/to any WEMI using "contains" or "contained in" -- so you can always link to all of the Works in an aggregate. What I would like to achieve is for different decisions (like one community calling the aggregate a Work/Expression and another focusing on the individual works and linking those to a Manifestation) to not create incompatible data. I've had this ill-formed notion for a while that we shouldn't actually be creating WEMI as "things" -- that to do so locks us into a record model and we get right back into some of the problems that we have today in terms of exchanging records with anyone who doesn't do things exactly our way. WEMI to me should be relationships, not structures. If one community wants to gather them together for a particular display, that shouldn't require that their data only express that structure. I'm not sure FRBR supports this. sound vague? it is -- I wish I could provide something more concrete, but that's what I'm struggling with. kc > > 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 -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet