On the other hand, while the film being a different work than the book
makes sense to me, the idea that an _audio book_ of the exact text of
the book is a different work (but a braille version is not? Or is a
braille version a different work too?) still seems weird to me.
But weird or not, in the end it's an arbitrary choice, and doesn't
concern me too much one way or another. As long as we know the audiobook
or movie _IS_ a dramatization of the original book, and that
relationship is encoded in machine readable way in the records, whether
it's an encoded as a separate work or not isn't that crucial.
We don't do well at even the first part at the moment.
Jonathan
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I think it's really an arbitrary choice, and not important -- the
important thing is that the things our users care about is encoded in
the data somehow, in a consistent way. Whether they're considered
seperate works or the same work, the record needs to tie them together
so we can display that tie to our users.
Mac makes a good point about how one reason the FRBR group may have
chosen that arbitrary distinction in this case was to be consistent with
legacy practice. FRBR is, intentionally, mostly a formalized and more
explicit model of _basically_ what we've been doing all along anyway.
While I don't think that legacy practices always trump everything else,
in this case since it's basically an arbitrary decision anyway, and what
matters is just attempting to get some kind of consistency at least
among library metadata generation, making that choice seems perfectly
reasonable to me.
No matter what, any formal model we have is going to be an imperfect
model of the actual world. The model is not reality, it's just a model.
There are many arbitrary choices to be made in it. You make them
balancing feasibility (in a bunch of different ways) with power and
flexibility (in also a bunch of different ways).
Jonathan
Myers, John F. wrote:
Jonathan Leybovich has cited FRBR chapter and verse for this treatment. To be honest, I have not entirely
been comfortable with this since my first exposure to FRBR. I've learned to accede to it. The best way that
I've managed to get my head around it is to consider that the change in format requires such additional
intellectual and creative contribution, that a new work is constituted. Barbara Tillett has a wonderful
slide in her FRBR presentations and in her pamphlet issued by LC, "What is FRBR"
(http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF), that illustrates the continuum between original work and
subsequent products in it's "family". "What is FRBR" is an excellent introduction to the
topic, by the way. Mac has offered a pragmatic approach -- if the choice of main entry changes, a different
work is involved.
John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
mye...@union.edu
518-388-6623
________________________________
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on
behalf of Christoph Schmidt-Supprian
Excuse my ignorance, but why are the film and the novel two different works?
