 |
 |
It's a bit slow, but I was able to get through the process. Matt Critchlow [log in to unmask] 858 534-6822 -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Doran, Michael D Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:39 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [CODE4LIB] Registration website issues? Is anyone else having trouble connecting to the Code4Lib registration website (https://www.confmanager.com/main.cfm?cid=2375)? It took me about 15 minutes to get connected initially, now it's hanging after page 2 (of 9?). -- Michael # Michael Doran, Systems Librarian # University of Texas at Arlington # 817-272-5326 office # 817-688-1926 mobile # [log in to unmask] # http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen > Coyle > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:51 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image > discovery interface > > Quoting "Beacom, Matthew" <[log in to unmask]>: > > Sometimes I feel like we should all have the FRBR diagram tattoo'd on > our arms so we can consult it any time anywhere. :-) > > > > > > With as complex a thing as a film--so many "authors", images, music, > > dialog, acting, sets, costume, etc., etc., etc., applying the FRBR > > model is tough, and your implementation is quite sensible. However, > > I had a small question about one thing you said about FRBR not > > allowing language at the work level. That doesn't seem right to me. > > How could the language of a thing that is primarily or even > > partially a work made of language--like a novel or a motion picture > > with spoken dialogue would not necessarily be considered at the work > > level and not at some other level. > > Matthew, I can't answer how it is possible but I can tell you that it > is a fact: language is an attribute of Expression, not of Work. That's > kind of the key meaning of frbr:Expression -- it is the Expression of > the Work, and the Work doesn't exist until Expressed. So Work is a > very abstract concept in FRBR. (Which is why more than one attempted > implementation of FRBR that I have seen combines Work and Expression > attributes in some way.) > > Not only that, but Kelley's model uses something that I consider to be > missing from FRBR: the concept of a "original Expression." For FRBR > (and thus for RDA) all expressions are in a sense equal; there is no > privileged first or original expression. Yet there is evidence that > this is a useful concept in the minds of users. Some recent user > studies [1] around FRBR showed that this is a concept that users come > up with spontaneously. Also, I can't think of any field of study where > knowing what the original expression of a work was wouldn't be > important. > > > Because of the way we treat translations--not just in FRBR--as what > > FRBR calls expressions not as new works, a translation from the > > original language to another would be considered an FRBR expression. > > Could you explain this a bit more? > > The FRBR relationship "translation of" is an Expression-to-Expression > relationship. (See my personal "cheat sheet" of RDA/FRBR relationships > [2]). > > kc > [1] http://www.asis.org/asist2010/abstracts/75.html > [2] http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1relsby.html > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Matthew > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > ... > > > >> This also allowed us to get around some of the areas of more > >> orthodox FRBR modeling that we found unhelpful. For example, FRBR > >> doesn't allow language at the Work level, but we think it is > >> important to record the original language of a moving image at the > >> top level. > > > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet