________________________________________ From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: January-11-12 3:53 AM To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access Cc: Brenndorfer, Thomas Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
>Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: > >That's an excellent point, and I see the difference better now. I had > >begun mulling over the comparison of an "aggregate" -- a collection in > >the conventional sense -- and "aggregating", a new concept referring > >to the effort to bring things together. The aggregating work and > >aggregating expression are entirely new entities that refer to an > >effort of arrangement, and not the collective effort for the > >individual works. ..... >So a large part of the things which are normal for works do not apply to >aggregating works. I find it especially problematic that there are >almost no relationships, as FRBR (as I understand it) is all about >making connections between things (entities). Taken together, I get the >strong impression that an aggregating work is no proper work at all, but >only a "pseudo work". I think (at this point in my explorations) "aggregating work" and "aggregating expression" are not the right tools to use to describe what's going, although they do point to an interesting problem. The tools to use shouldn't be something like Group 1 entities, but rather something like relationship elements. There are three tools to use: entity, attribute element, relationship element. The "-ing" word "aggregating" points to an effort, an activity, a role. There are numerous relationship designators that capture those kinds of processes in RDA already. Specifically, the RDA relationship designators "editor of compilation" and "illustrator" are useful to look at. These are "contributor" relationship designators between persons (or corporate bodies or families) and expressions. But the report on aggregates follows up on the FRBR revision for expressions, where "augmentations, such as illustrations, notes, glosses, etc. that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work, such augmentations are considered to be separate expressions of their own separate work(s)." ( http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm#3.2 ) Therefore, something like "illustrator" as a contributor to an expression is problematic. An illustration augmenting a work is now considered an expression of a separate work, not part of the expression of the original work. So the "illustrator" shouldn't really have a relationship to an expression, but rather be considered a Creator (specifically with the RDA designator "artist") of an illustrative work that augments another work. The report would then have the two works (original work and illustration) realized as two expressions found together in an aggregating expression. There is a problem here, but maybe there are better solutions. RDA would have it differently... RDA 20.2.1.1: "For expressions consisting of a primary work accompanied by commentary, etc., illustrations, additional musical parts, etc., the writers of commentary, etc., illustrators, composers of additional parts, etc., are considered to be contributors." This gives greater weight to what a "contributor" is -- I think this even removes the need for the aggregating work and aggregating expression, but it might lead to a redefinition of the existing elements. For example, in this light, here's how I would recast what an illustrator is.... Illustrator - is a person who supplements (or augments) a work by creating an illustrative work that is expressed with an expression of the work That tiny designator, "illustrator" packs quite a punch -- it carries within it a notion of a work (the illustrative work), and it points to the two expressions combined together that form a specific, augmented expression that explicitly realizes only one work -- the original "primary work". The problem is: what to make of that augmented expression. Is it two expressions realizing two works? Or is it one expression explicitly realizing one primary work, but also capturing a hidden relationship to another work via the relationship designator "illustrator"? I think the latter definition is OK. If FRBR was revised to avoid the proliferation of expressions, then an "aggregating expression" just reintroduces the problem, as aggregating expressions exist in principle for every instance in which there are augmentations. In RDA, these are attributes of expressions that point to augmentations that in principle are expressions of other works: 7.12 Language of the Content Examples: Commentary in English In Polish; tables of contents and summaries in Polish, Russian and English 7.14 Accessibility Content Example: Closed captioning in German 7.15 Illustrative Content Example: illustrations 7.16 Supplementary Content Example: Includes index >> 2. An expression with components embodied in the manifestation (whole-part >> relationships can be found here, with relationships between the individual >> >> expressions and the whole). These whole-part relationships are still >> allowed in the report with its suggested rewording in FRBR 3.4. >This has me completely mystified. Perhaps it really means that an >aggregating work and a conventional aggregate work can coexist at the >same time (although the Working Group couldn't be bothered about how >this should be modeled). But what, I wonder, could be the point of >having both at the same time, especially as there can be no >relationships between them? The definition of aggregate as being more than one expression in a manifestation leads to a paradox with an expression of a collective work. If it's "one" expression, then there is no aggregate, by definition, as there is only "one" expression embodied in a manifestation. But if each work has its component works identified, then there are suddenly many expressions embodied in the manifestation. In this case there still really shouldn't be an aggregating expression and aggregating work, because the original collective work has all the roles covered. Who's left to do the aggregating? The original creator(s) responsible for the different works in the collective work have already done the arrangements. For works that are arranged in a new collective work later... In RDA, when someone comes along after the fact, a relationship designator is used connecting a person to the collective expression of the work. The RDA contributor relationship designator, "editor of compilation": Definition: "A person, family, or corporate body contributing to a collective or aggregate work by selecting and putting together works, or parts of works, by one or more creators." So, while this person contributes to a collective work , the relationship is that of contributor to the expression. There isn't a need to create phantom entities like aggregating work, since the process or role of aggregating is what matters, and that can be defined as a relationship. That the relationship element is connected to an expression means that there might be a lot more expressions, which runs against the grain of the FRBR revision to expressions. But I think this could be preferable to the proliferation of pseudo-entities like aggregating expression and aggregating work. I think further exploration should look at the relationship elements, and perhaps the attributes, as the tools to use. Relationship elements can become entities, in that they may need to be described with attributes, and have new kinds of relationships with other entities. To get the idea from something similar, in RDA, there is one outlier relationship element -- the "Numbering of Part" relationship element. It wouldn't exist on its own and would need to be paired with a relationship designator like "in series". Perhaps the "contributor" relationship element can be embellished with distinctions to relationships to the primary work and to augmentations. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
