________________________________________ From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: January-12-12 3:26 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
>> 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. >Thanks for pointing out the difference between an illustrator and e.g. a >translator. We tend to think of these functions as being quite similar >as we have typically treated them alike, but indeed according to FRBR >they are rather different. >The problem is that In cases where we don't want to handle augmented >editions as aggregate works but still want to bring out the illustrator, >we need some entity for him or her to link to. It doesn't really matter >in an ordinary MARC file where the levels of work, expression and >manifestations are all muddled together anyway. But in other scenarios, >it would. There's an example I've come across that demonstrates the problem. Large print books can exclude such augmentations as bibliography, index, and illustrations on plates found in the regular print version. In RDA, there would be two expressions for each case (but still only one work), whereas the report on aggregations would have one main expression and several smaller ones that would only be noted (and there would be this unusual "aggregating expression" entity, at least in principle, for the aggregate manifestation with the augmentations). I think there is logic for both approaches. But I can recall with dismay when I was younger that there were versions of Lord of the Rings that were missing the appendixes. I felt cheated when I picked up such a version, since I wasn't getting the whole deal. In such a situation I would definitely come down on the side of saying this was a different expression. I would avoid any publications that had this truncated expression. But I also recognized that there were special illustrated editions with illustrations by Alan Lee, which meant that there were gradations in considering what were acceptable and ideal versions (or expressions). Somewhere in this mix there is the notion of the "primary work" (a phrase found in RDA at 20.2.1.1.). Some of the RDA expression attributes and relationship elements settle around an idea that there are supplementary works being expressed as augmentations to a primary work. RDA 7.15 has illustrative content as illustrating the "primary content" of a resource. So maybe there is a soft way of handling augmented expressions, with elements like relationship designators (like "illustrator") that convey this complexity in indirect ways. If there's a primary work, there would be a primary expression, and a cluster of elements that fall just outside this boundary but still forming a uniquely identified expression entity. There are other ways of categorizing entities like these ( FRBRoo has a wider range http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/frbr_oo/frbr_docs/FRBRoo_V1.0.1.pdf for a number of different circumstances). > >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. >I'm not sure I understand which case you mean here. But thinking about >it, it is certainly true that the model of the Working Group is >non-recursive. If we think of two different collections which have first >been published as separate books (and, therefore, would both have their >own aggregating work) and later on are published _together_ in one >manifestation, what you get according to the Working Group is simply all >of the individual works (from both collections) embodied in the >manifestation, plus a third aggregating work (with no connection to the >other two aggregating works). The Lord of the Rings example without the appendixes mentioned above gets at this issue. What are the boundaries for determining what the distinct expressions are, so one can say definitively that there is "one" expression, or that there are is aggregation-- a set of expressions? There's something a little flimsy in hanging one's hat on the peg of aggregate manifestations containing more than one distinct expression as being the main definition of an aggregation. I like a collection of short stories example. Say there's a collection of short stories by Alice Munro that she wrote and selected to be published together, with a collective title. Is this one expression? Or is it a set of expressions, one expression for each short story? Perhaps at a later time there is a "Best of ... " volume that has some of the short stories from the earlier publication (and let's say it's Alice Munro doing all the selecting or "aggregating" in that case as well). If the collective works are named entities, and required for different kinds of relationships, then it's impractical to downplay this reality in saying that that aggregates only exist at the manifestation level. I think the paradox is that it's correct to say that the original publication of short stories has "one expression" AND it has "many expressions." Also I think the notion of "aggregating work" is problematic-- it becomes an empty shell entity in this case. The creator of the collective work is Alice Munro-- and it would be redundant to say she is also the instigator of the aggregating work, which the report says ALWAYS exists in principle for aggregate manifestations. If the collective work is the subject of a book of criticism, what is the subject heading? The collective work entity (which contains the parts), or this aggregating work entity? The aggregating work entity cannot fill this role-- it only conveys an effort of bibliographic arrangement, and therefore cannot be the SUBJECT of the work of criticism. The aggregate manifestation cannot be the subject either, because there could be multiple manifestations if various publishers have their way. All that's left is the collective work entity. Another example: say there's a bound volume containing only the Gospel of Matthew. One could say there's only one expression in the manifestation, but the Sermon on the Mount is also an established work heading. Are there in a sense two expressions in the manifestation? Ideally if one is looking for the part (the Sermon), one should somehow find this manifestation as satisifying the search (especially if it's the only publication containing the work, the Sermon, in the library). It may not be an aggregate manifestation in the sense that aggregates should consist of distinct expressions, but perhaps in some full application of the FRBR model, one should think of it as a multi-expression entity, very much dependent on the idea of whole-part relationships. So if whole-part relationships are essential in this case, why are they a problem? The report seems concerned about two many combinations of works and works-of-works and whole-part relationships, but isn't the essence of a linked, networked future for bibliographic data is that there should be lots and lots of relationships? Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
