I agree with Karen Coyle's argument, and I share the concern about FRBR concepts pushing catalogers away from the bibliographic detective work that they should be concentrating on, and into something else that they have neither the time nor, frankly, the training and inclination to do.
I raised this question at a FRBR pre-conference last summer in Chicago: Do we really expect catalogers to spend their time establishing "works"? Or is the question of "workhood" -- if indeed it needs to be answered -- something that is better left to literary and historical scholarship? The answer I was given was, "Well that's what they've always been doing with uniform titles." But is it? To my mind, a uniform title is basically an instruction to collocate items under a fixed, but essentially arbitrary label. It recognizes the fact that, in certain circumstances the user is aided by cataloger-intervention, but makes no real claim that the uniform title alone represents "a distinct intellectual or artistic creation." After all, most of the rules for uniform title give the cataloger a fairly wide degree of latitude in constructing that title, because it is recognized on some level that it is a device, not an existential statement. (As an aside, a gripe I have, not so much about FRBR, as the way it has been "sold", as it were, to catalogers, is that the examples of "workhood" seem always to be carefully chosen so that the nature and name of the work is obvious or at least non-controversial. I think we all can agree on the "workhood" of Shakespeare's Hamlet... leaving out those few who are convinced it was penned by Sir Francis Drake, or Queen Elizabeth! But the vast majority of materials that I work with are neither so well known nor well-represented by multiple editions that the task of figuring out exactly what the "work" is and should be called would I believe take considerable footwork and time.) I like the idea of a "recordless view." It pushes us toward looking at the concept a little differently. "Work" is really just a deduced relationship among various editions. Like all relationships among entities, it should be noted when it is deemed useful, and ignored when it isn't. Instead of establishing "works" as such we should just be recording statements like: Agency X calls Editions A and B different versions of the same Work, W. More food for thought, B Benjamin Abrahamse Head, Serials Cataloging Section Cataloging and Metadata Services MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:58 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about RDA relationships (App. J) Quoting hec...@dml.vic.edu.au: > > See, for instance, the newly-formulated BIBCO standard record > <http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/bibco/BSR-Final-Report.pdf> -- a formula > less than core in terms of content required -- where the prescription > for the uniform title states (for 240, i.,e. uniform title under > author's name): "Supply if known or can be easily inferred from the > item being cataloged." > One key difference between library cataloging and the web-based concepts in the semantic web work is that the latter sees metadata as being built up as information becomes available. So metadata in a networked environment is additive -- it's not a one-time creation. If one contributor knows the uniform title (Work title), then all linked Manifestations now have access to that title. Also, it appears to me that the RDA Group 1 relationships mix bibliographic relationships and intellectual relationships. Librarians may excel at noting bibliographic relationships, but certain users, such as professors of literature, will be the best source of information on intellectual relationships. In a networked environment, it may be possible for those experts to provide their own view of the bibliographic universe that interests them. (As often happens, this takes us directly back to Vanevar Bush's Memex and the sharing of links.) What worries me most about the FRBR WEMI view in which each entity is a record is that it places a nearly impossible burden on the cataloger. Which is why I'm exploring the possibility of a "recordless" view -- which would consist of short statements ("Jane is author of Book") that are each valid, and can be combined with other statements to build up to a complete bibliographic description. I don't know yet if this is possible. It would use semantic web concepts, not the RDA scenario 1, but perhaps scenario 0. It assumes an open bibliographic environment where statements can exist with metadata contributed by others. If I get a clear enough picture in my head, I'll make a drawing! kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
