On 18/10/2010 12:53 PM, Stephen Hearn wrote:
I've long considered the notion of aggregates as FRBR works to be problematic, so I see a lot to admire in the Variations approach.
I haven't yet turned my attention to the Variations information, which looks very interesting; but this calls up some problems I have with FRBR.
Some time ago, I recall, I questioned the validity of considering collections (assuming "aggregates" includes these) as works on the same basis as other works; in reply IIRC Barbara Tillett suggested there was no good reason for considering "containing works" to be essentially different from others. (If my recollection is faulty, I'm sorry for that; but I think the issue deserves attention, even if I have attribution and detail a bit wrong!)
I presume that containing works may be monographic, i.e. assembled into a set named and definable as a coherent entity; or alternatively extending (e.g. monographic series, or serial, maybe also integrating); and one shades into the other, as when a collection of readings, or musical pieces, or whatever, is presented in a new edition, but under the same title, with variations of content.
I think the FRBR framework WEMI is too minimalistic a summary of real bibliographic life; to accomodate reality, the definitions have to be trained and stretched rather too far. Consider recent exchanges, here and elsewhere, about topics such as lack of definition in the practice of formulating provider-neutral records, and treatment of electronic documents reproducing a reproduction of a document originally in another medium. One of my favorite points of difficulty is concerned with the failure to recognize subcategories: by strict adherence to FRBR principles, a print reproduction of a print text issued by another publisher is another expression; as I see things, it could better be characterized as a sub-manifestation -- but sub-entities don't figure in the schema. Another conceivable sub-entity, in a different order, are the physical parts of an item, e.g. volumes of a multi-volume printed text.
FRBR is a conceptual framework (not a data structure), of immense value, but there are things it doesn't accomodate well. As our approaches to bibliographic control become increasingly granular, I fear the deficiencies of FRBR as metadata structure will become increasingly clear; I fear also that responses will be fragmented and contradictory, undermining the hoped-for progress towards interoperability. Therefore I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders, nor simply lift the edge of the carpet to slide the debris out of sight. The history of cataloguing shows that difficulties don't go away if we don't look at them.
Hal Cain (retired but not uninterested) Melbourne, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
