Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Congratulations Jeff - you are a member of an elite club - those who admit to not understanding FRBR. When I try and sort it out I am fine with Manifestation and Item sort of OK with Expression but lost in clouds of bibliographic and philosophic musings when it comes to Work. Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room struggle with this - how is the wider community supposed to make sense of it? Thank you for your honesty Jeff! Best wishes Keith Keith Trickey Liverpool Business School From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jeff Peckosh [jpeck...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:13 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. Thanks, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
07.04.2011 08:03, Trickey, Keith: Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room struggle with this - how is the wider community supposed to make sense of it? At the end of the day, what matters is if and how catalog users can make sense of it, if not even become attracted to it. The language of FRBR is, at least in important parts, the one of the database engine room, not the bibliographic engine room, which means one room further away from the end user. The two engine rooms must, however, be better able to communicate, so both sides need to have some understanding of the other. Not a new topic at all. The entity-relationship model (don't mix that up with the relational database model!) provides the foundation for FRBR. FRBR was written so as to make database engineers better understand what they are supposed to think and to do. Google's database engineers will have a language of their own, too. But nothing of it seeps through into their user interface, and this is what must be achieved with FRBR as well. The very acronym FRBR must not show up there, and not shudder FRBRized either, nor entity or expression or manifestation and so on. Coming to think of it, Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records does not really reveal much of what it is talking about. From todays view of database theory, something like Bibliographically Structured Object Model (BiStrOM) would be much more plausible, and this could trickle through into the user room as Bistro Catalog. And get rid of the dry and dreadful RDA as well! I mean, how unimaginative can we allow ourselves to get... B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA writes: I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. The best thing I've read so far is Introducing RDA by Chris Oliver: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooksunfiltered=1field-keywords=field-author=oliver%2C+chrisfield-title=rdafield-isbn=9780838935941field-publisher=node=field-p_n_condition-type=field-feature_browse-bin=field- binding_browse-bin=field-subject=field-language=field-dateop=field-datemod=field-dateyear=sort=relevanceexprankAdv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0 cheers, Sandra Knapp Head Cataloguer hours: 8:00 am to 3:30 pm, Mon-Fri. Waterloo Region District School Board Library Services Dept. (519)570-0300 x4621
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Here's a nice visual representation of the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, and screenplay together... *Amanda Raab* Catalog and Metadata Librarian Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives 2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115 phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964 ar...@rockhall.org | www.rockhall.com/library * * On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh jpeck...@yahoo.com wrote: I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. Thanks, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
This is nice, thanks for providing it Amanda. Besides the links between the related works, I saw one other error: in the item for the DVD, the material type is shown as BOOK. Adam ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, runjuliet wrote: Here's a nice visual representation of the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, and screenplay together... Amanda Raab Catalog and Metadata Librarian Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives 2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115 phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964 ar...@rockhall.org | www.rockhall.com/library On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh jpeck...@yahoo.com wrote: I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. Thanks, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Keith, I wrote something a while back that ended up on a couple lists. The core of the idea is that there is not such thing as work. It is one of the those Platonic ideal forms of which everything else is a reflection: expression, manifestation, item For instance, according to Plato, when you see a horse, you are not seeing a horse, only a reflection (partial at best) of the ideal horse. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Trickey, Keith k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.ukwrote: Congratulations Jeff - you are a member of an elite club - those who admit to not understanding FRBR. When I try and sort it out I am fine with Manifestation and Item sort of OK with Expression but lost in clouds of bibliographic and philosophic musings when it comes to Work. Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room struggle with this - how is the wider community supposed to make sense of it? Thank you for your honesty Jeff! Best wishes Keith Keith Trickey Liverpool Business School From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [ RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jeff Peckosh [ jpeck...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:13 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. Thanks, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
I say this now and then, but I think the FRBR entities make a lot more sense considered as set relationships (ala Svenonius and I think Yee), which avoids the 'platonic' nature of the entities considered otherwise. This isn't an attack on the model itself, I think the model is fine, and just makes more sense conceptually considered as representing sets of actual physical things (the only physical thing is the 'item'), rather than as platonic things in themselves. http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/frbr-considered-as-set-relationships/ http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/notes-frbr-wemi-entities-physicality-interchangeability-merging/ On 4/7/2011 12:59 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: Keith, I wrote something a while back that ended up on a couple lists. The core of the idea is that there is not such thing as work. It is one of the those Platonic ideal forms of which everything else is a reflection: expression, manifestation, item For instance, according to Plato, when you see a horse, you are not seeing a horse, only a reflection (partial at best) of the ideal horse. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Trickey, Keith k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.uk mailto:k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.uk wrote: Congratulations Jeff - you are a member of an elite club - those who admit to not understanding FRBR. When I try and sort it out I am fine with Manifestation and Item sort of OK with Expression but lost in clouds of bibliographic and philosophic musings when it comes to Work. Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room struggle with this - how is the wider community supposed to make sense of it? Thank you for your honesty Jeff! Best wishes Keith Keith Trickey Liverpool Business School From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jeff Peckosh [jpeck...@yahoo.com mailto:jpeck...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:13 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. Thanks, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu mailto:gf...@cst.edu
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Ditto, Jonathan. The description/access needs of information objects beget the abstractions in the model, not the other way around. Cheers, Casey On 4/7/2011 10:59 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: I say this now and then, but I think the FRBR entities make a lot more sense considered as set relationships (ala Svenonius and I think Yee), which avoids the 'platonic' nature of the entities considered otherwise. This isn't an attack on the model itself, I think the model is fine, and just makes more sense conceptually considered as representing sets of actual physical things (the only physical thing is the 'item'), rather than as platonic things in themselves. http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/frbr-considered-as-set-relationships/ http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/notes-frbr-wemi-entities-physicality-interchangeability-merging/ On 4/7/2011 12:59 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: Keith, I wrote something a while back that ended up on a couple lists. The core of the idea is that there is not such thing as work. It is one of the those Platonic ideal forms of which everything else is a reflection: expression, manifestation, item For instance, according to Plato, when you see a horse, you are not seeing a horse, only a reflection (partial at best) of the ideal horse. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Trickey, Keith k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.uk mailto:k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.uk wrote: Congratulations Jeff - you are a member of an elite club - those who admit to not understanding FRBR. When I try and sort it out I am fine with Manifestation and Item sort of OK with Expression but lost in clouds of bibliographic and philosophic musings when it comes to Work. Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room struggle with this - how is the wider community supposed to make sense of it? Thank you for your honesty Jeff! Best wishes Keith Keith Trickey Liverpool Business School From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jeff Peckosh [jpeck...@yahoo.com mailto:jpeck...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:13 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. Thanks, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu mailto:gf...@cst.edu -- Casey A. Mullin Discovery Metadata Librarian Metadata Development Unit Stanford University Libraries 650-736-0849 cmul...@stanford.edu http://www.caseymullin.com -- Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement of that minority. -Martha Yee attachment: cmullin.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Here's a nice visual representation of the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html Shouldn't all the expression just be under one Work, since the Work is the insubstantial idea that then is created as an expression? For example, I would definitely want all versions of say Pride and Prejudice listed as the same work, then have all the expressions of it listed below that, with the manifestations listed for each expression. ** ** Aleta Copeland, MLS Head of Technical Services Ouachita Parish Public Library 1800 Stubbs Ave. Monroe, LA 71201 318-327-1490 ex. 3015 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of runjuliet Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:37 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR Here's a nice visual representation of the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, and screenplay together... Amanda Raab Catalog and Metadata Librarian Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives 2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115 phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964 mailto:ar...@rockhall.org ar...@rockhall.org | http://www.rockhall.com/library www.rockhall.com/library On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh jpeck...@yahoo.com wrote: I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. Thanks, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
The 'conventional' modelling choice right now is to call the film version of Pride and Prejudice a different (creative) 'work' than the novel, and the film script yet different again. This is a somewhat arbitrary choice -- when modelling reality, we have to make choices on how to 'summarize' reality in our modelled data, in the most useful ways for our use cases. It is my opinion that neither choice is neccesarily more 'right', any model is neccesarily a summarized 'lossy encoding' of reality. In this case, that choice is arguably most consistent with legacy cataloging practice, where a film version gets a different authority record than the original novel -- and perhaps more importantly, gets a different 'main entry'. Things that are the same 'work' in legacy cataloging practice are going to have the same main entry, if they have different main entries, that means legacy cataloging practice treated them as different works. Sort of, it's ambiguous, part of the point of FRBR/RDA is to make it less ambiguous and more consistent, but (for better or for worse), follow the lead of our inherited legacy practice. So, anyway, the modelling choices say that a novel and a film based on it belong to different 'work' sets -- but they can certainly still be related by OTHER relationships, such as a work-to-work relationship is based upon. Jonathan On 4/7/2011 4:15 PM, Aleta Copeland wrote: Here's a nice visual representation of the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html Shouldn’t all the expression just be under one Work, since the Work is the insubstantial idea that then is created as an expression? For example, I would definitely want all versions of say Pride and Prejudice listed as the same work, then have all the expressions of it listed below that, with the manifestations listed for each expression. ** ** Aleta Copeland, MLS Head of Technical Services Ouachita Parish Public Library 1800 Stubbs Ave. Monroe, LA 71201 318-327-1490 ex. 3015 *From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *runjuliet *Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:37 AM *To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA *Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] FRBR Here's a nice visual representation of the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, and screenplay together... *Amanda Raab* Catalog and Metadata Librarian Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives 2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115 phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964 ar...@rockhall.org mailto:ar...@rockhall.org| www.rockhall.com/library http://www.rockhall.com/library On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh jpeck...@yahoo.com mailto:jpeck...@yahoo.com wrote: I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. Thanks, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
In terms of films vs. texts, we can think of Shakespeare. The texts of his plays are entered under his name, but filmed productions are entered under title. In the case of adaptations of novels for the screen, there is a screenwriter involved, as well, so these productions are not the work of the original author. So I think this would be work related to work. Michael S. Borries CUNY Central Cataloging 151 East 25th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10010 email: michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu Phone: (646) 312-1687
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
And while I may have become a bit too Platonic (who knows?), there is only one work here. The novel. The film and the film script are expressions. On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:37 AM, runjuliet runjul...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a nice visual representation of the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, and screenplay together... *Amanda Raab* Catalog and Metadata Librarian Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives 2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115 phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964 ar...@rockhall.org | www.rockhall.com/library * * On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh jpeck...@yahoo.com wrote: I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English? I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so much. Thanks, Jeff Peckosh Public Library Cataloging Librarian -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
On 4/7/2011 5:36 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: And while I may have become a bit too Platonic (who knows?), there is only one work here. The novel. The film and the film script are expressions. Apparently even AACR2 disagrees with you, or they'd get the same 'main entry' under AACR2, which they do not, right? How can the same work have more than one 'main entry', that doesn't make any sense just in AACR2 language alone, does it? Again, I think it's important to emphasize that FRBR/RDA attempt to be most consistent with legacy practice, while formalizing and explicitly modelling it. You can certainly disagree with how AACR2 has been modelling things for ~30 years, or legacy cataloging practice before that too -- I don't think there's one existentially or platonically right answer, there is no way to 'experimentally' answer it by putting the book and a DVD under a microscope or something -- but that's FRBR/RDA is not attempting to fundamentally change AACR2's entity modelling choices, for better or worse. (Except perhaps when AACR2's entity modelling choices become apparent as inconsistent within themselves, once made explicit and formally modelled). It's a convention. And the convention under both AACR2 and RDA is to consider a genre change to be a new work, as Thomas Brenndorfer helpfully explains referencing the actual RDA text.
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Mark Rose wrote: The whole notion of Work in FRBR seems unnecessary in my view. We don't deal in Platonic ideals of what a work is but in actual productions, the physicality of the work, i.e. expression down to item. --- The statement above is self-contradictory. It would deny the notion of Work, but then incorporates the work in its rebuttal. Further, everything above the item is an abstraction -- even the manifestation is not a physicality of the work. We just play a mental game at pretending the manifestation is real when we catalog at that level based on the sole item exemplar in our hands. We have played fast and loose in our title and name/title authority records, using the authority for the expression in the original language to serve both functions of describing that expression and serving as the work anchor for subsequent expressions. Despite the somewhat arbitrary nature of FRBR's dividing point between work and expression (and what constitutes the same work), it is obvious that some gathering mechanism, distinct from the expression, is necessary to group related expressions together, as evidenced by our current faulty authority practices. Lastly, it is not like the concept and abstraction of work is new to us, having used its plural form as a collective uniform title for ages. John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College 807 Union St. Schenectady NY 12308 518-388-6623 mye...@union.edu
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu: Again, I think it's important to emphasize that FRBR/RDA attempt to be most consistent with legacy practice, while formalizing and explicitly modelling it. You can certainly disagree with how AACR2 has been modelling things for ~30 years, or legacy cataloging practice before that too -- I don't think there's one existentially or platonically right answer, there is no way to 'experimentally' answer it by putting the book and a DVD under a microscope or something -- but that's FRBR/RDA is not attempting to fundamentally change AACR2's entity modelling choices, for better or worse. (Except perhaps when AACR2's entity modelling choices become apparent as inconsistent within themselves, once made explicit and formally modelled). Another convention (that seems to call for a superwork entity) is the case of a work for which a new edition, i.e. change of content, is issued with a different title. Both AACR2 and RDA treat it as a new and related work. It's a convention. And the convention under both AACR2 and RDA is to consider a genre change to be a new work, as Thomas Brenndorfer helpfully explains referencing the actual RDA text. Genre change is the marker, behind that lie changes in creative or editorial responsibility. As text, a Shakespeare play is just text (the content may vary right from the earliest known published versions, but conventionally we regard each Shakespeare play as one work); as a performance it's an expression with additional participation by actors, director, etc.; as a film or video it has further participants (cinematographers, producter, maybe music, etc.) and so on. But it's unmanageable to declare that genre change sometimes marks an expression but sometimes does not. I might ask though whether notated music and music as sound are different works or different manifestations. Among other considerations, the level of accessibility differs markedly: reading music notation is a skill that's not universal -- if that matters... Hal Cain Melbourne, Australia hec...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
On 4/7/2011 6:39 PM, hec...@dml.vic.edu.au wrote: Another convention (that seems to call for a superwork entity) is the case of a work for which a new edition, i.e. change of content, is issued with a different title. Both AACR2 and RDA treat it as a new and related work. You don't need a superwork entity to have a new and related work. It's a new work. Which has a work-to-work relationship to the old work. Which is how you model a 'related' work, a work with a relationship, pretty un-confusingly. There are more relationships in FRBR/RDA than just the Group 1 W-E-M-I set. As an aside, this IS something that legacy cataloging practice didn't do very well, because in the card catalog (or bound catalog) environment there wasn't really any great way to allow a user to follow a relationship except directing them to look up a particular 'heading' (aka 'entry') in the card catalog. So, okay, you just did that, and you didn't need to worry too much about exactly what you were doing, you were just sending the user to look up a heading, and they'll find something related in some way when they arrive there. In the computer environment, if the software knows there's a relationship and knows what kind of relationship it is, there are all sorts of things that can be done to expose this relationship to the user (and be clear exactly the nature of the relationship) and allow it to be followed, or collocated. All sorts of interfaces. Exactly which is best for a given context, or which ones can be feasibly/inexpensively implemented in software, is something that could use some experimentation -- but can't do experimentation unless you have the data.
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Having been in plays, I can assure you that what is on stage is not the same as the text, whether of Shakespeare or the adapter. And in fact, in spite of warnings from the playwrights in the prefaces to their works, many plays are cut so they don't run on forever (think Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe). Not only that; each performance is different from the night before. In one drastic instance, we had one actor leave the play during intermission; during intermission we had to train someone else in the dialogue and the dancing and singing for Damn Yankees. So we have what we have in fron to us. Just as it is hard to imagine how a roan, a pinto, or a palamino can reflect the ideal horse, since they are mere expressions (in coloration) or maybe manifestations of horse, that is all we have, which is why the whole idea of work is purely a mental construct. On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:29 PM, hec...@dml.vic.edu.au wrote: Quoting michael.borr...@mail.cuny.edu: In terms of films vs. texts, we can think of Shakespeare. The texts of his plays are entered under his name, but filmed productions are entered under title. In the case of adaptations of novels for the screen, there is a screenwriter involved, as well, so these productions are not the work of the original author. So I think this would be work related to work. Hmm. In the role of advocatus diaboli, I ask: is a stage performance of a Shakespeare play, recorded on video or film, the same work as the text? It necessarily involves persons in quasi-creative roles (director, actors) whose contribution will materially affect the meaning, even the content, of the play (and, after all, the texts of some Shakespeare plays exist in different versions right from their first publication); and some modernized productions may be more in the nature of adaptations than simply expressions. It appears that many modern theorists of literature, who also discuss the nature of the work and the distinction between text (meaning approximately what we call work) and document (meaning what we call manifestation, see a distinction between text and performance. This seems to me to support the idea that there's space for a superwork entity -- which I too have long supported. But (prescriptions of RDA perhaps notwithstanding -- I don't have the text of RDA available at present) we should not forget that FRBR is a conceptual framework, not a code: the limits and applications of the concepts are defined by the particular code and the application decisions made in implementing it. Those application decisions are heavily coloured by the fact that there has to be a level of compatibility between past practice (AACR2/LCRI, also in part earlier codes/practices). In particular the handling of work and expression entities in terms of authority data precludes us from doing what was envisaged: recording features of work and expression on the basis of what's common between different manifestations, and saving ourselves from having to reinvent the same wheel every time we catalogue a different manifestation -- common tabulation of relationships, access points for Group One entities, subject treatment, appropriate coded data, standard classifications -- and making clear what the differences between expressions and manifestations really are. The MARC 21 schemas handle agents (person, corporate body, family) as authority records and manifestations as bibliographic records (also items as Holdings data), but they have no way for us to compose work or expression records which tie together common data as I outlined above. Nevertheless cataloguing is a pragmatic discipline and we have to do the best we can with the tools we actually have, not vapourware merely foreshadowed! In an ideal environment, I would like to work in a pattern like this: (1) examine a manifestation (on my desk, screen, in earphones, etc.) to see if it represents (a) a new work, (b) a new expression of a previously-recorded work [recorded as in cataloguing, not as in recorded sound!]; (2) if new, create or compile the bibliographic data and deal with the item(s). in a system of coding or mark-up which includes simple flagging of work-level and expression-level data; (3) if not new, collate existing data for other manifestations to produce the common work and expression data, and add the manifestation data, and deal with the item(s). Much of that work of collating existing data can be prepared by good cataloguing software. I see no point whatsoever in explicitly creating distinct datasets or records for works or manifestations for which only a sole expression exists! When or if it's required, the machine can do the preliminary grunt work if the tagging/markup of the data carries sufficient discrimination -- and that markup should be surely sufficient for processing bibliographic data for other contexts and applications. I'm well aware that much existing
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
With all due respect to the many good points that are being made, I object to the use of the term convention, which tends to imply mindless adherence to past practice. In fact, a great deal of thought and practice went into the boundaries drawn between different works that can be found in the current AACR2 rules 21.9-15, as well as comments elsewhere in that chapter and in chapter 25. There are boundaries, much of the time fairly clear to most of our users as well as librarians. Occasionally, however, what differentiates one work from another is difficult to pin down, and sometimes one can see a work going from unity to multiplicity and back (this particularly happens with works transmitted in manuscript). Reality, however, is complicated. Richard Smiragli wrote an excellent book on the subject (The nature of a work, 2001). I used to toy with the idea of the work as a platonic concept, but I really believe that FRBR is innocent of philosophy. I suppose you could construct the epistemological presuppositions and general philosophical view behind it, but I suspect that what you would come up with would be a surprise to those who developed the model. If one has to talk about mental concepts, perhaps we can get away from archetypes and forms with a separate reality and talk about shared perceptions of common characteristics. As for superwork, I prefer the notion of work family, which is used by Smiraglia (who got it from someone whose name I forget). That metaphor is much more flexible and accounts for some of the wild variety we see in works (fraternal twins, step grandparents, in-laws and so on :-)). -- Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: On 4/7/2011 5:36 PM, Gene Fieg wrote: And while I may have become a bit too Platonic (who knows?), there is only one work here. The novel. The film and the film script are expressions. Apparently even AACR2 disagrees with you, or they'd get the same 'main entry' under AACR2, which they do not, right? How can the same work have more than one 'main entry', that doesn't make any sense just in AACR2 language alone, does it? Again, I think it's important to emphasize that FRBR/RDA attempt to be most consistent with legacy practice, while formalizing and explicitly modelling it. You can certainly disagree with how AACR2 has been modelling things for ~30 years, or legacy cataloging practice before that too -- I don't think there's one existentially or platonically right answer, there is no way to 'experimentally' answer it by putting the book and a DVD under a microscope or something -- but that's FRBR/RDA is not attempting to fundamentally change AACR2's entity modelling choices, for better or worse. (Except perhaps when AACR2's entity modelling choices become apparent as inconsistent within themselves, once made explicit and formally modelled). It's a convention. And the convention under both AACR2 and RDA is to consider a genre change to be a new work, as Thomas Brenndorfer helpfully explains referencing the actual RDA text.
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Dear Hal, At Stanford (where we have been cataloging exclusively in RDA since October 2010), we had this discussion just today about how RDA does *not* continue the AACR2 convention you describe. Specifically, the instruction at 25.2B in AACR2 is not to be found in RDA. The chain of logic we found leads one to treat new editions as expressions of the same work unless 6.27.1.5 (Adaptations and revisions) applies. In fact, that is the only explicit guidance on when to construe a new work that I have personally found in RDA. If you have found evidence to the contrary, I'm quite curious to hear it. Cheers, Casey On 4/7/2011 3:39 PM, hec...@dml.vic.edu.au wrote: Another convention (that seems to call for a superwork entity) is the case of a work for which a new edition, i.e. change of content, is issued with a different title. Both AACR2 and RDA treat it as a new and related work. -- Casey A. Mullin Discovery Metadata Librarian Metadata Development Unit Stanford University Libraries 650-736-0849 cmul...@stanford.edu http://www.caseymullin.com -- Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement of that minority. -Martha Yee attachment: cmullin.vcf
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Jonathan Rochkind said:
The 'conventional' modelling choice right now is to call the film=20
version of Pride and Prejudice a different (creative) 'work' than the=20
novel, and the film script yet different again.
Which the former MARC21 503 justifying a 730 took care of nicely. I
can't see we will be any further ahead.
But I find many still think RDA will link the novel and movie Gone
with the wind.
RDA can deal with this relationship by using 7XX$i (first in some RDA
test records, and last in others). But all clients we have consulted
say their ILSs are not ready to cope with this new subfield, and they
can't afford the upgrading required. So we will continue to use 503
(*why* was it made obsolete!!??) and 7XX.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
[RDA-L] Other fallout from work-expression differences
There is an example in the sample RDA records offered by the JSC that drives home an interesting point about works and expressions: pg 5-6 in http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC_RDA_Complete_Examples_(Bibliographic)_revised.pdf The example for Kalan Porter's CD 219 days shows some interesting instances of how values for RDA elements related to works and expressions are arranged. Of note are some key elements: 17.8 Work manifested: Porter, Kalan. 219 days. The authorized access point for the work doesn't have an exact equivalent in MARC-- the combination of 100 and 245 title proper is the closest match. The construction of the authorized access point for the work is based on the identifying the Creator of the work, and this is declared in the following element sequence: Element: Creator Value: Porter, Kalan Designator: composer An important concept to grasp is that when RDA presents elements values like Creator or Composer, these are mapped directly to the Work entity. Relationship elements owe their existence by being tethered to a specific entity. That's important because of the next element sequence where Kalan Porter appears again: Element: Contributor Value: Porter, Kalan Designator: singer Contributor and Singer are values that are mapped to the Expression. Unlike in MARC, where headings, once they find in a home in a 100 or 700 field, are done for the day, not so for RDA access points. Kalan Porter is a Person with a relationship mapped to a Work and a separate relationship mapped to the Expression. In MARC, mapping these distinct relationships to the work and manifestation entities can be handled by the awkward-looking: 100 $a Porter Kalan, $e composer $e singer Not only are there are a handful of element that help to identify an Expression entity (RDA Ch. 6 elements Content Type, Language of Expression, Date of Expression, Other Distinguishing Characteristic of the Expression), the number of relationships that can be associated with that Expression can be far more numerous, and in this case with Kalan Porter, be treated completely separately from his relationship to the Work. While there may not be many elements that go into identifying an Expression, that Expression can have a long list of relationships: Contributor element - relationship designators may include: abridger animator arranger of music art director choreographer (expression) composer (expression) costume designer court reporter draftsman editor editor of compilation editor of moving image work illustrator interviewee (expression) interviewer (expression) musical director performer, which includes: -actor -commentator -conductor -dancer -host -instrumentalist -moderator -narrator -on-screen presenter -panelist -puppeteer -singer -speaker -storyteller -teacher presenter production designer recording engineer recordist stage director surveyor transcriber translator writer of added commentary writer of added text writer of added lyrics Likewise there are many possible expression-to-expresson relationships in RDA Appendix J.3. The sets of designators that go with the Related expression element include derivative, descriptive, whole-part, accompanying, and sequential relationships. Many of these are Expression versions of Related work designators, but there are a few Expression-specific designators (with reciprocals), such as: -musical arrangement of -revision of -translation of One set of relationships that won't be a concern are relationships to subjects-- RDA Ch. 23 is titled General Guidelines on Recording the Subject of a Work. Works are the only entities that have subjects in RDA. One case where the Expression entity can produce a lot of relationships is with motion pictures. The following designators are mapped to the motion picture Work: director, director of photography, producer, production company (none are Creators-- they are in a different RDA element for a person or corporate body related to the work, Other Persons, Families or Corporate Bodies Associated with a Work.) Designators for Contributors to motion pictures (an Expression relationship) include all perfomers, as well as editor of moving image work, costume designer, art director, and production designer. Considering all the director's cuts for movies, one can see how performances may be added or dropped, music or production effects changed, or other contributions changed, but the overall creative content is still bound to a set of key Persons or Corporate Bodies related to the Work itself (director, producer, etc.). So although the Expression might not require much consideration at times, with only a few elements initially of note (Content Type, Language), there are a lot of ways in which the Expression entity can expand to become the dominant entity of consideration even when there is only one expression of a work. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
Our ILS (Innovative) has no problem with 7XX $i and displaying well. For
example:
http://catalog.lib.washington.edu/search~S6?/tPlanet+of+the+apes/tplanet+of+the+apes/1%2C6%2C18%2CB/framesetFF=tplanet+of+the+apes+motion+picture+19681%2C%2C2
^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Jonathan Rochkind said:
The 'conventional' modelling choice right now is to call the film=20
version of Pride and Prejudice a different (creative) 'work' than the=20
novel, and the film script yet different again.
Which the former MARC21 503 justifying a 730 took care of nicely. I
can't see we will be any further ahead.
But I find many still think RDA will link the novel and movie Gone
with the wind.
RDA can deal with this relationship by using 7XX$i (first in some RDA
test records, and last in others). But all clients we have consulted
say their ILSs are not ready to cope with this new subfield, and they
can't afford the upgrading required. So we will continue to use 503
(*why* was it made obsolete!!??) and 7XX.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
