At one level I don't see the "work" and "instance" discussion in the paper of any greater significance than RDA's penchant for preferring a "content" vs "carrier" distinction in the organization of the earlier chapters in RDA.
In several early chapters in RDA there is only a thin blue line separating the movement from manifestation attributes to item attributes, and from work attributes to expression attributes. For an example of a boundary, see the blue separator "Other Identifying Attributes of Expressions" above RDA 6.9 (Content Type). For RDA Ch. 4 (Providing Acquisitions and Access Information), the attributes can be applied to either manifestations or items. This can be seen more clearly in the RDA Element Set view (under the Tools tab), which has a hard FRBR breakdown of WEMIPFCBCOEP and all subordinate elements organized by attribute elements and then relationship elements. The report provides a good rationalization for its own approach, which is at a sufficiently high abstract level to account for data organization by other communities: >>>>> "The goal of the Bibliographic Framework Initiative is to develop a model to which various content models can be mapped. This recognizes that different communities may have different views of their resources and thus different needs for resource descriptions. This is especially pronounced as one leaves the book/text media and considers images (still and moving), cartographic resources, archival collections, and ultimately cultural artifact and museum collections. Many content models define hierarchical relationships that need to be restated in RDF graph terms and then simplified to the BIBFRAME model. For example, the origin of the Work/Instance aspects of the BIBFRAME can reflect the FRBR relationships in terms of a graph rather than as hierarchical relationships, after applying a reductionist technique to simplify things as much as possible. Formally reconciling the BIBFRAME modeling effort with an RDA-lite set of cataloging rules is a logical next step." (pg. 15 - http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf) >>>>> Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller > Sent: November 24, 2012 5:37 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced > > This is indeed rather unsettling. > > Funnily enough, they even take the FRBR report (1997 text, in the English > version) as their example to show what BIBFRAME might look like (p. 16ff). > But one wonders whether they've taken the trouble of actually reading it. > The BIBFRAME entity "work", it seems, is a mixture of the FRBR "work" and > the FRBR "expression". > > This doesn't seem helpful. To me, one of the most important lessons to be > learned from FRBR is the importance of the work (in the FRBR sense) as a > starting point for user navigation. In BIBFRAME, there doesn't seem to be > a common "node", to which the various expressions of the FRBR report (1997 > and 2007 text, translations in various languages) could be linked - they > would all be separate BIBFRAME works. Perhaps they could at least be > linked together horizontally ("Works can relate to other Works reflecting, > for example, part / whole relationships", p. 8). > > The BIBFRAME "instance" sounds like the FRBR "manifestation". FRBR "item" > doesn't really seem to exist as an entity in its own right; it is > supposedly covered by BIBFRAME "holdings", which is an example for > "annotation", and therefore seen as something similar to cover art or a > review. > > It should also be noted that "Each BIBFRAME Instance is an instance of one > and only one BIBFRAME Work." (p. 10), whereas in FRBR a manifestation may > embody more than one expression. > > The distinctions between "authority" and "annotation" also seem rather > shady to me. Subjects are given as examples for "authority". Would that > also include e.g. user tagging, or would this rather be "annotation"? > > Granted, this is only a first draft, and it is explicitly stated that the > model is not complete (p. 8.). I also readily accept that BIBFRAME should > have a wider horizon than "just libraries". Among other things, this > certainly means that it should be possible to have different levels of > complexity (e.g. other parties might want a more "simple" way of > representing data than we're used to) withoug becoming incompatible. But > still, BIBFRAME simply _must_ be able to model RDA data in the necessary > granularity and specificity. > > Heidrun > > > > Am 24.11.2012 00:34, schrieb Robert Maxwell: > > I haven't had a chance to look closely at the document yet, but it does > disturb me that "a team from Zephira" appears to have, having thought > about it for a few months, swept away nearly two decades of consideration > by the best minds in the cataloging profession by apparently abandoning > the FRBR model, as Mac points out below. I realize not everyone agrees > with the FRBR model but I should think such a step should not happen > simply because of a report from a consulting group. Sally McCallum said in > her announcement that "like MARC, [the model] must be able to accommodate > any number of content models", which is certainly true, but one would > think that at least one of those content models might be RDA, which was > the entire impetus for hiring Zephira to come up with a new model for us. > Since RDA is firmly based on FRBR and DOES include provisions for > describing and linking to expressions, it does seem inappropriate that the > new model should not provide for this entity. I have a hard time seeing > how this model would be any better a fit for RDA than the current MARC > model. > > > > Further, report's apparent continuation of a model that continues the > division of the database into "authority" and "instance" (which I gather > is more or less the equivalent of bibliographic records, see p. 10 of the > report) seems extremely backward to me. In an ER linked data database we > would have descriptions of the entities linked by relationship links. > > > > Bob > > > > Robert L. Maxwell > > Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian Genre/Form > > Authorities Librarian > > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library > > Brigham Young University > > Provo, UT 84602 > > (801)422-5568 > > > > "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine > ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, > 1842. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee > > Elrod > > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:41 PM > > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] BIBFRAME model document announced > > > > Posted to Bibframe: > > > > > >> http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf > > > > Creative Work - a resource reflecting a conceptual essence of the > > cataloging item. > > > > > > Instance - a resource reflecting an individual, material embodiment > > of the Work. > > > > > > Authority - a resource reflecting key authority concepts that have > > defined relationships reflected in the Work and Instance. Examples of > > Authority Resources include People, Places, Topics, Organizations, etc. > > > > > > Annotation - a resource that decorates other BIBFRAME resources with > > additional information. Examples of such annotations include Library > > Holdings information, cover art and reviews. > > > > Are we to gather that RDA's "Work" is still a work, but that "Instance" > > replaces Manifestation, Expression is no more, and Item data is a part > > of annotation? Will WIAA or CIAA be our new acronym, replacing WEMI? > > > > > > __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) > > {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ > > ___} |__ > > \__________________________________________________________ > > > -- > --------------------- > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, > Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
