Thomas Brenndorfer said:

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.

True, works and expressions are treated very close together in RDA. And it's certainly also true that the boundaries between the WEMI entities are not always clear-cut, and there is sometimes room for discussion and different interpretations.

But I still find it very hard to accept that BIBFRAME in its first draft (if I understand it correctly) doesn't seem to accommodate for modeling a work in the abstract FRBR sense - at least not in the bibliographic part of BIBFRAME. Perhaps it would be possible to model a FRBR work in the "Authority" section of BIBFRAME, as obviously a FRBR work can be a subject. I share Robert Maxwell's concern, though, that BIBFRAME here seems to codify a certain form of technical implementation, namely that of bibliographic vs. authority data. A really modern data framework should, I believe, be more flexible than that.


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)

Well, maybe it's just me, but I'm not really sure what they mean with "reflecting the FRBR relationships in terms of a graph (...) after applying a reductionist technique". Some more information would have been nice. It would also have been good if the BIBFRAME paper gave some insight in the motives for digressing from FRBR. Because, although I expressed some doubts in my last mail, in fact I am certain that they've read the FRBR report...

Also, I really don't like the word "RDA-lite" in this paragraph. BIBFRAME must also accommodate for "RDA-full".

Heidrun


--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
Fax. 0711/25706-300
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Reply via email to