Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
J. McRee Elrod wrote: In article 49f31a67.6050...@kcoyle.net, you wrote: One way around the WEMI straight-jacket that I've been exploring is to use the relationships inherent in that rather than seeing it as a structure. It's nice to see that someone has at least recognized that WEMI is more of a straight-jacket than ISBD ever has been. RDA applies WEMI to material to which it is not applicable. We find ISBD can be applied to all resources, realia to websites. There is a fine line between required structure for coherence, and straight-jacket. ISBD does not cross that line. RDA does. Completely true. FRBR/RDA constructs a theoretical framework that we will all have to fit the materials into one way or another (what is the work in this resource? what is the expression? what is the manifestation? what is the item? and now with the newest web resources, what is the thing-that-has-yet-to-be-named?) Then comes the practical task of: what do I do with this thing-that-has-yet-to-be-named? And let's just assume that even if we decide how to deal with this thing-that-has-yet-to-be-named, there will be new things in the future that still won't fit. On the other hand, ISBD is focused on providing standards for description and is based very much on practical considerations: - enter the title -- where do I find it -- for each format, from these places -- add additional titles in these cases - enter the title -- there is none -- devise one -- make a note. - enter the title -- it has appeared differently on other resources -- make a uniform title -- do it this way I can just imagine the long, involved, learned, academic disquisitions on which of the parts a specific resource is or has a specific work or an expression of a work, and then someone else will pop-up to say that what they are discussing are really all manifestations and the argument continues... I'm more of a practical kind of guy. If it could be demonstrated that going through this process will help users find the information they need, or make our tools more comprehensible, that would be one thing, but I haven't seen any studies out there, although I may be in error. Jim Weinheimer
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
In article 49f31a67.6050...@kcoyle.net, you wrote:
One way around the WEMI straight-jacket that I've been exploring is to
use the relationships inherent in that rather than seeing it as a
structure.
It's nice to see that someone has at least recognized that WEMI is
more of a straight-jacket than ISBD ever has been. RDA applies WEMI
to material to which it is not applicable. We find ISBD can be applied
to all resources, realia to websites.
There is a fine line between required structure for coherence, and
straight-jacket. ISBD does not cross that line. RDA does.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Dan Matei wrote: -Original Message- From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements, either way. I would prefer to call them cultural conventions. IMHO, they are not completely arbitrary: they are based on the evaluation of the amount of added creativity. But I think this misses the point: does WEMI define the universe of information, *and* define what people want when they search information? From my understanding of FRBR/RDA, everything must be boiled down to WEMI. Certainly if I have a book by one author and they make a movie out of it, that may be one thing, but there are almost infinite possibilities today. What if I have a single document in XML that outputs MSWord, pdf, HTML, text, djvu and so on? Each output has different page numbers and can look completely differently, but they are all have exactly the same information. Many newspapers are produced this way so that they don't have to make separate paper versions and an online version. Even among these different versions, there may be specific outputs for a different screen sizes, for different browsers, or on a specific mobile phone (becoming more popular) and now probably with different ebook readers. Remember, these versions are derived from one, single file, and most of these versions are only virtual i.e. while they can be printed, they won't be. Add to this a mashup of bits and pieces of separate items of information from different websites using APIs, each of which may have gone through a similar transformation as mentioned above. It seems to me that trying to relate this to WEMI is literally mind-blowing and an exercise in futility. I see our task as trying to give access to this information in the most coherent way for our users. Is seeing everything through WEMI-colored lenses the only way, the best way, or even a correct way, of doing it? Jim Weinheimer
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Bernhard Eversberg wrote: Weinheimer Jim wrote: But I think this misses the point: does WEMI define the universe of information, *and* define what people want when they search information? From my understanding of FRBR/RDA, everything must be boiled down to WEMI. It's the classical mental image for the structure of published resources. It emerged at a time when there was no dynamism and interactivity in publishing but only static, physical items one could relate to each other in defined ways. Yes; even so, I remain unconvinced that the containing work (a monograph collection of contributions, like that favorite academic creation, the festschrift; or, above all, a serial publication containing articles) is really the same kind of beast as a work in the sense of a person's writing, or a picture -- I suspect the analogies are weak, and appear tolerable only because in the past we've used similar devices do deal with them, basically ignoring the constituent works which they contain. Consolidation of like attributes is one thing; reductionism (which involves ignoring of significant differences because they don't seem to fit your narrowly-focussed purpose right now, and can therefore be plausibly but inaccurately said not to matter) is quite another, and undermines our efforts. I see our task as trying to give access to this information in the most coherent way for our users. Is seeing everything through WEMI-colored lenses the only way, the best way, or even a correct way, of doing it? Not in my view -- WEMI is only properly applicable to essentially coherent documents. Besides, FRBR/WEMI/FRAD show no signs of being applied to make the kind of links which, in principle, could be created. I think I've quoted before one of my own fields of interest: spiritual writings used by Elizabethan Catholics. In this cluster of documents Jesuits authors, editors and publishers are a significant group of contributors. But no mechanism, present or proposed (except my own endeavours, for myself), enables me to apply a search criterion to discovering or organizing the resources, namely what documents have a Jesuit connection? And if you're going to move outside the document field -- resources which have a degree of fixity -- I really don't understand how you can operate in combination with documentary resource systems. Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Weinheimer Jim wrote: But I think this misses the point: does WEMI define the universe of information, *and* define what people want when they search information? From my understanding of FRBR/RDA, everything must be boiled down to WEMI. I do not agree with this understanding. WEMI describes how it's suggested we divide our conceptual _entities_, whether actually divided into seperate records per-entity (ideal in my opinion), or just divided into intellectual components that might be combined in a record (also possible). But everything is NOT boiled down to WEMI. Many other relationships between WEMI entities are possible. The FRBR report itself says this, although does not definitively describe a vocabularly of possible relationships, leaving that to a later date and/or to individual communities. RDA may make a contribution here, I'm not really sure, finding RDA somewhat impenetrable. It is a misconception that everything must boil down to WEMI and we can record no other relationships that are not in WEMI. Jonathan
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: But everything is NOT boiled down to WEMI. Many other relationships between WEMI entities are possible. The FRBR report itself says this, although does not definitively describe a vocabularly of possible relationships, leaving that to a later date and/or to individual communities. RDA may make a contribution here, I'm not really sure, finding RDA somewhat impenetrable. It is a misconception that everything must boil down to WEMI and we can record no other relationships that are not in WEMI. Perhaps I am completely off base, but I do not believe I am talking about relationships here, I am talking about some new types of entities that do not seem to fit the WEMI theoretical framework. These new things I discussed do not seem to me to fit in very comfortably to work, expression, manifestation, or item. They seem to be completely different animals. I guess I see it as similar to the introduction of printing, which brought in some brand new concepts, such as exact duplicate. With hand-made text, such a thing as an exact duplicate never existed before, and before printing, collectors went to great lengths to get as many copies of a text as possible so that all could be collated and compared. But with printing, there were suddenly exact duplicates. (I actually did a bit of research on this at one point and, so far as I found, the first time this was mentioned was by Thomas Bodley, who complained that his librarian was spending his money, buying lots of texts he already had. The librarian was doing the same thing that he had always done, but technology caught up with him, even though if memory serves, this happened in the early 1500s. Please, anybody feel free to correct me!) I think we are entering a similar time with new things popping up. These new things could not have been foreseen during the development of FRBR,in the 1990s, but they are everywhere now and wildly popular. Certainly we can shoe horn everything together and make things fit, but I don't know if that would be correct or wise. Naturally, I could be wrong in this and WEMI is forever and immutable, but I think that at least the issue itself is debatable. Jim Weinheimer
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
In article 2mp8jfj3be8t09...@slc.bc.ca, I wrote:
BTW the term for super-work is urberwerk (which can also mean an
organ swell, and is a popular binocular).
Sorry. the organ swell is oberwerk.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on behalf of Weinheimer Jim Perhaps I am completely off base, but I do not believe I am talking about relationships here, I am talking about some new types of entities that do not seem to fit the WEMI theoretical framework. These new things I discussed do not seem to me to fit in very comfortably to work, expression, manifestation, or item. They seem to be completely different animals. -- Do these new things/entities have a name? Do they have a definition? Is there any relationship between them and the model under discussion? To previous cataloging theories? That is, where do they fit into the structures we are used to? Or are they entirely incompatible with previous thinking? Do we need to replace bibliocentric thinking with datum-centric thinking (like geocentrism was replaced by heliocentrism)? Or can the approaches live side-by-side to address different levels of granularity at which users can operate (like quantum and Newtonian mechanics for sub-atomic and super-atomic interactions)? I can see from James and others' posts that something interesting is going on with full-text, digital access and the use of search engines. I can also see that others have something interesting to describe concerning the semantic web. I get glimmers that RDA seems to be leveraging FRBR to tap into the latter (setting aside concerns over the possible success or failure of that endeavor). But I do not see what proponents of the former would like to accomplish, what their plan is to accomplish it, what libraries' place will be in it, and by extension what the role of the cataloging community will be. I get the point that hand-crafted metadata is not sustainable in a digital environment. (Not happy, but get it.) FRBR/RDA seem to offer the hope of guiding the evolution/development of machine-assisted metadata. The full-text rules/datum snippet/mash-up approach seems only to offer oblivion. John Myers, Catalog Librarian Schaffer Library, Union College Schenectady NY 12308 mye...@union.edu 518-388-6623
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Weinheimer Jim wrote: But I think this misses the point: does WEMI define the universe of information, *and* define what people want when they search information? From my understanding of FRBR/RDA, everything must be boiled down to WEMI. It's the classical mental image for the structure of published resources. It emerged at a time when there was no dynamism and interactivity in publishing but only static, physical items one could relate to each other in defined ways. I see our task as trying to give access to this information in the most coherent way for our users. Is seeing everything through WEMI-colored lenses the only way, the best way, or even a correct way, of doing it? We may look at LT as a kind of lab where new things are tried out, and done by people who are mostly not trained librarians, or at least not sworn in to AACR and LCSH. What's the stuff that emerges out of there? Some of it are re-inventions of what we've long since had, but with new twists. Look at what sort of links they create between resources, or works and manifestations, or between persons and their works, and what uses are being made of it all. And that whole tagging business is certainly not just a crude re-creation of subject headings, it goes beyond what we'd call subjects. People put in attributes there they'd actually like to be able to find in searches, so look closer at those attributes: what's there that we don't have in catalogs? But then, of course, full-text search and ToC vocabulary may well be much more useful already than all that WEMI can possibly achieve, esp. if we consider that WEMI can help in relatively few cases only, the amount and importance of which we have no clear assessment of. And that means we have to include outside search systems into our catalog concepts. What people find in LT, in GBS, in Amazon, in Wikipedia, to name a few, must be translatable into a meaningful search in their local catalogs or WorldCat, for they don't start their searches and they don't find what they want in libraries today, or maybe 1 in 100 cases, not more. Catalog access must get in there for they are the only gateways into library-held resources. Things to this effect have been said many times but are not addressed at all by RDA. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Excuse my ignorance, but why are the film and the novel two different
works? Are they not different expressions of the same work, that is,
is the film not an adaptation of the novel? And if they are separate
works, why do they need to be linked to each other?
I'm still a novice in FRBR and don't expect anyone to go into great
detail of what might be very basic knowledge to most of you, but if
there is an obvious and short explanation, I would really appreciate
hearing it!
Regards,
Christoph
-
Dr. Christoph Schmidt-Supprian
Assistant Librarian
Bibliographic Data Management
Trinity College Library
Dublin
(e) schm...@tcd.ie
(t) +353 +1 896 1659
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Adam L. Schiff
asch...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The link between the novel and the film is best done just once - in the two
work records for the novel and the film that RDA is leading us to in some
hopefully not too distant future - rather than in every bibliographic record
for each manifestation. We could do this in authority records too, but our
current policies don't authorize it and ILS systems wouldn't necessarily
integrate it well with our manifestation bibliographic records. RDA is
hopefully leading us to a place where many of these relationships need only
be recorded once.
Adam Schiff
^^
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 Tue, 21 Apr 2009, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
When RDA, to embody Works - expressions - manifestations - items (aka
WEMI) - was first being bruited, frequent mention was made of Gone
With the Wind.
The novel and motion picture are two different works, not two
manifestations of the same work. In the brave new bibliographic
universe of WEMI, a note and added entry in the records for
each would be required to link to the others, just as now.
At present, we usually enter a note and added entry for the novel in
the record for the motion picture, but not for the motion picture in
the record for the novel. It would only require a change in practice,
not convoluted analysis and complex new rules, to begin doing so.
The reason we have not done so, I suspect, is the same reason that
780/785 were not extended to monographs - to link successive editions
-, at the time of format integration. In the days of card catalogues,
such reverse linkage would have required the pulling, changing, and
refiling of a set of cards. Such is no longer the case. It would not
be that difficult to increase linkage among records as they now exist.
What is needed is ILS/OPAC development to show those linkages.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
It's kind of arbitrary whether they are considered the same work or
different work. But the library community has decided to consider them
different works, for a bunch of reasons that are probably documented
somewhere or other
So if they're different works, why do they need to be linked? Precisely
because it's a kind of arbitrary decision, and a user may well be
interested to find that there's a film version of the novel, or to find
the original novel the film was based on -- and only by linking them
somehow in the record can our systems then display that related work to
the user.
Some systems may even decide to group them together as one 'work' in the
display, even though our record-keeping-system considers them seperate
work. That linking would allow an individual system to do that, if it so
chose.
Jonathan.
Christoph Schmidt-Supprian wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but why are the film and the novel two different
works? Are they not different expressions of the same work, that is,
is the film not an adaptation of the novel? And if they are separate
works, why do they need to be linked to each other?
I'm still a novice in FRBR and don't expect anyone to go into great
detail of what might be very basic knowledge to most of you, but if
there is an obvious and short explanation, I would really appreciate
hearing it!
Regards,
Christoph
-
Dr. Christoph Schmidt-Supprian
Assistant Librarian
Bibliographic Data Management
Trinity College Library
Dublin
(e) schm...@tcd.ie
(t) +353 +1 896 1659
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Adam L. Schiff
asch...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The link between the novel and the film is best done just once - in the two
work records for the novel and the film that RDA is leading us to in some
hopefully not too distant future - rather than in every bibliographic record
for each manifestation. We could do this in authority records too, but our
current policies don't authorize it and ILS systems wouldn't necessarily
integrate it well with our manifestation bibliographic records. RDA is
hopefully leading us to a place where many of these relationships need only
be recorded once.
Adam Schiff
^^
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 Tue, 21 Apr 2009, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
When RDA, to embody Works - expressions - manifestations - items (aka
WEMI) - was first being bruited, frequent mention was made of Gone
With the Wind.
The novel and motion picture are two different works, not two
manifestations of the same work. In the brave new bibliographic
universe of WEMI, a note and added entry in the records for
each would be required to link to the others, just as now.
At present, we usually enter a note and added entry for the novel in
the record for the motion picture, but not for the motion picture in
the record for the novel. It would only require a change in practice,
not convoluted analysis and complex new rules, to begin doing so.
The reason we have not done so, I suspect, is the same reason that
780/785 were not extended to monographs - to link successive editions
-, at the time of format integration. In the days of card catalogues,
such reverse linkage would have required the pulling, changing, and
refiling of a set of cards. Such is no longer the case. It would not
be that difficult to increase linkage among records as they now exist.
What is needed is ILS/OPAC development to show those linkages.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Here is the relevant section from FRBR (3.2.1):
Thus paraphrases, rewritings, adaptations for children, parodies,
musical variations on a theme and free transcriptions of a musical
composition are considered to represent new works. Similarly,
adaptations of a work from one literary or art form to another (e.g.,
dramatizations, adaptations from one medium of the graphic arts to
another, etc.) are considered to represent new works.
A little more implicitly, in FRBR 4.2.2, the attribute, Form of
Work, is defined as:
The form of work is the class to which the work belongs (e.g., novel,
play, poem, essay, biography, symphony, concerto, sonata, map,
drawing, painting, photograph, etc.).
Thus it would be impossible just by dint of FRBR's formal model for a
film and a novel to be expressions of the same work, as films and
novels have distinct Form of Work types, implying all expressions of
the novel are realizations of a different work (which will have Form
of Work = novel) than all the all expression of the film (which
will have Form of Work = moving picture ).
The link between the film work and novel work is intended to capture
an important relationship between the two distinct works that is
important to users. Given that there are so many fundamental
inter-work relationships, I've always thought it would make sense to
introduce a new Super-Work entity that would serve to group one work
and all its realizations (e.g. all literary, cinematic, musical, and
graphic works largely inspired by the Dickens short story work, A
Christmas Carol).
Best,
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Christoph Schmidt-Supprian
cschmidtsuppr...@googlemail.com wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but why are the film and the novel two different
works? Are they not different expressions of the same work, that is,
is the film not an adaptation of the novel? And if they are separate
works, why do they need to be linked to each other?
I'm still a novice in FRBR and don't expect anyone to go into great
detail of what might be very basic knowledge to most of you, but if
there is an obvious and short explanation, I would really appreciate
hearing it!
Regards,
Christoph
-
Dr. Christoph Schmidt-Supprian
Assistant Librarian
Bibliographic Data Management
Trinity College Library
Dublin
(e) schm...@tcd.ie
(t) +353 +1 896 1659
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Adam L. Schiff
asch...@u.washington.edu wrote:
The link between the novel and the film is best done just once - in the two
work records for the novel and the film that RDA is leading us to in some
hopefully not too distant future - rather than in every bibliographic record
for each manifestation. We could do this in authority records too, but our
current policies don't authorize it and ILS systems wouldn't necessarily
integrate it well with our manifestation bibliographic records. RDA is
hopefully leading us to a place where many of these relationships need only
be recorded once.
Adam Schiff
^^
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 Tue, 21 Apr 2009, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
When RDA, to embody Works - expressions - manifestations - items (aka
WEMI) - was first being bruited, frequent mention was made of Gone
With the Wind.
The novel and motion picture are two different works, not two
manifestations of the same work. In the brave new bibliographic
universe of WEMI, a note and added entry in the records for
each would be required to link to the others, just as now.
At present, we usually enter a note and added entry for the novel in
the record for the motion picture, but not for the motion picture in
the record for the novel. It would only require a change in practice,
not convoluted analysis and complex new rules, to begin doing so.
The reason we have not done so, I suspect, is the same reason that
780/785 were not extended to monographs - to link successive editions
-, at the time of format integration. In the days of card catalogues,
such reverse linkage would have required the pulling, changing, and
refiling of a set of cards. Such is no longer the case. It would not
be that difficult to increase linkage among records as they now exist.
What is needed is ILS/OPAC development to show those linkages.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Jonathan Leybovich wrote: The link between the film work and novel work is intended to capture an important relationship between the two distinct works that is important to users. Given that there are so many fundamental inter-work relationships, I've always thought it would make sense to introduce a new Super-Work entity that would serve to group one work and all its realizations (e.g. all literary, cinematic, musical, and graphic works largely inspired by the Dickens short story work, A Christmas Carol). You should be able to do that using the relationships between works -- like adaptation of. Essentially the 'work-work' relationships create a superwork. The bibliographic relationships in FRBR are where its real power lies, yet we have trouble imagining uses for them because our systems today don't support anything similar. But in FRBR you can say that one 'work' is a screenplay based on another, or that one is a sequel to another. This is where we'll get the real bang for the buck of moving to a FRBR model. kc -- --- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Mac's response here is right on! If the film Gone with the wind and the
novel were both the same work, they would be named the same way. Few
people would name the film as a being created by Mitchell (or, in AACR2
terms, the novel gets Mitchell as main entry, but the film does not).
^^
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, 23 Apr 2009, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
In article 18be635c0904230835l6cceee17n40e5749ab0a55...@mail.gmail.com, you
wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but why are the film and the novel two different
works? Are they not different expressions of the same work ...
The film is a work of mixed responsibility, with prime entry under
title; the novel is a work written by a single author, with prime
entry under that author. All expressions/manifestations of the same
work have the same prime entry.
If *that* changes. SLC is shutting down!
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: On the other hand, while the film being a different work than the book makes sense to me, the idea that an _audio book_ of the exact text of the book is a different work (but a braille version is not? Or is a braille version a different work too?) still seems weird to me. Don't know where you got the idea that an audiobook of the exact text of a book is a different work. In RDA it certainly is not. It's a new expression of the same work. -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 * **
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Isn't saying that if the main entry changes, it's a different work looking at it backwards? We choose a different main entry because we (in the library community) have agreed (by custom) that a film is a different work from the book it was based on. That why we have rules like AACR2 21.9. FRBR says in 3.2.1 that the boundaries of the work entity are culturally determined and could vary in different communities. --- John Hostage Authorities Librarian Langdell Hall host...@law.harvard.edu Harvard Law School Library+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice) Cambridge, MA 02138 +(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax) http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/ -Original Message- topic, by the way. Mac has offered a pragmatic approach -- if the choice of main entry changes, a different work is involved.
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Although RDA may presuppose that an audiobook version of a book is an expression, is not doing so an arbitrary judgment? Not only is the format different, but it involves the participation of one or more readers or actors to interpret the text. To take it one step further, how should we describe the relationship of a play (text) and a performance of the play? Jay Towne Smith Senior Cataloger San Francisco Public Library -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: On the other hand, while the film being a different work than the book makes sense to me, the idea that an _audio book_ of the exact text of the book is a different work (but a braille version is not? Or is a braille version a different work too?) still seems weird to me. Don't know where you got the idea that an audiobook of the exact text of a book is a different work. In RDA it certainly is not. It's a new expression of the same work. -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 * ** Official SFPL use only
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements, either way. I think folks need to get used to this,and stop thinking that we are actually somehow recording the Actual Universe 100% objectively in the only way possible to do so. It's just a model, just a representation. It's full of arbitrary (meaning either way _could_ be equally 'accurate') judgements. Jonathan Jay Smith wrote: Although RDA may presuppose that an audiobook version of a book is an expression, is not doing so an arbitrary judgment? Not only is the format different, but it involves the participation of one or more readers or actors to interpret the text. To take it one step further, how should we describe the relationship of a play (text) and a performance of the play? Jay Towne Smith Senior Cataloger San Francisco Public Library -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:39 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: On the other hand, while the film being a different work than the book makes sense to me, the idea that an _audio book_ of the exact text of the book is a different work (but a braille version is not? Or is a braille version a different work too?) still seems weird to me. Don't know where you got the idea that an audiobook of the exact text of a book is a different work. In RDA it certainly is not. It's a new expression of the same work. -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 * ** Official SFPL use only
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
-Original Message- From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements, either way. I would prefer to call them cultural conventions. IMHO, they are not completely arbitrary: they are based on the evaluation of the amount of added creativity. Jonathan Jay Smith wrote: Although RDA may presuppose that an audiobook version of a book is an expression, is not doing so an arbitrary judgment? Not only is the format different, but it involves the participation of one or more readers or actors to interpret the text. To take it one step further, how should we describe the relationship of a play (text) and a performance of the play? Jay Towne Smith Senior Cataloger San Francisco Public Library Dan --- Dan Matei, director CIMEC - Institutul de Memorie Culturala [Institute for Cultural Memory] Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90 013701 București [Bucharest], Romania, www.cimec.ro tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64 www.cimec.ro
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Dan, I agree. They represent the point of view of a particular community, and are no less valid for that. The problem has been that there has been some notion floating around that we all have to agree on ONE point of view for record sharing to work under FRBR. I believe that is not the case, so long as each community documents their data decisions in a way that can be shared as well--part of what Application Profiles are about. Diane Dan Matei wrote: -Original Message- From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements, either way. I would prefer to call them cultural conventions. IMHO, they are not completely arbitrary: they are based on the evaluation of the amount of added creativity. Jonathan Jay Smith wrote: Although RDA may presuppose that an audiobook version of a book is an expression, is not doing so an arbitrary judgment? Not only is the format different, but it involves the participation of one or more readers or actors to interpret the text. To take it one step further, how should we describe the relationship of a play (text) and a performance of the play? Jay Towne Smith Senior Cataloger San Francisco Public Library Dan --- Dan Matei, director CIMEC - Institutul de Memorie Culturala [Institute for Cultural Memory] Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90 013701 București [Bucharest], Romania, www.cimec.ro tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64 www.cimec.ro
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
In article 387791fc3f8c1b4e98bf58481496c6f20281f...@hlsexch3.law.harvard.edu,
you wrote:
Isn't saying that if the main entry changes, it's a different work
looking at it backwards? We choose a different main entry because we
(in the library community) have agreed (by custom) that a film is a
different work from the book ...
Main (aka prime) entry is based on responsibility for the work. A
filmed version of a novel differs in responsibility from the novel.
There is a screen writer. Even if the novelist is the screen writer,
subplots may be omitted, characters combined, endings changed (witness
Home at the end of the world). Title and setting may be changed
(witness Page turner and Food of love).
Then there are other responsible persons and bodies recorded
(erroneously I think) in 24$c (as opposed to all in 508), which do not
include the author of the original novel.
Our practices, which have evolved over centuries, *do* represent an
objective reality.
BTW the term for super-work is urberwerk (which can also mean an
organ swell, and is a popular binocular).
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Dan Matei wrote: -Original Message- From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements, either way. I would prefer to call them cultural conventions. IMHO, they are not completely arbitrary: they are based on the evaluation of the amount of added creativity. Certainly not completely arbitrary. The notion that there's an intrinsic link between an author and her/his work is deeply embedded in bibliographic conventions; consider, for instance, what the standard academic style guides demand in composing citations for bibliographies and lists of sources consulted in the course of preparing a paper or a thesis. And popular discussion makes a firm connection between writer and work -- for some popular fiction, at least, one remembers the author rather than the title! The fact that this connection is diluted (by multiple authorship, corporate authorship, creating a composite work under editorial direction) does not invalidate it. The name of a work more often than not embraces both author and title. Jay Smith wrote: Although RDA may presuppose that an audiobook version of a book is an expression, is not doing so an arbitrary judgment? Not only is the format different, but it involves the participation of one or more readers or actors to interpret the text. To take it one step further, how should we describe the relationship of a play (text) and a performance of the play? A film based on a boom adds so many levels of creation and contribution to the final product that normally responsibility is simply too diverse for this kind of assignment. However, for an audiobook, the reader's contribution is entirely subsidiary. It's possible to have a computer read an electronic text; or perform a piece of music held in an electronic file. The essential content is the author's or composers, if they can be identified as the principal creator, alone or in a combination. A performance of a play is stretching the authorship convention a bit further -- likewise performance by a group of a piece of music. But thus far (maybe not so intuitively) the naming of the work performed, by its author and title, seems to remain the best way of naming the performance. Of course, if we manage to build comprehensible ways of naming expressions, it would become possible to make the performers, venue and date of performance part of the extended name. Whether the systems that present this information use the natural names, or employ tokens through which the names are pulled from a connected resource file, matters in practice only to those whose business it is to play around under the hood! Hal Cain Dalton McCaughey Library Parkville, Victoria, Australia h...@dml.vic.edu.au
Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
The link between the novel and the film is best done just once - in the
two work records for the novel and the film that RDA is leading us to in
some hopefully not too distant future - rather than in every bibliographic
record for each manifestation. We could do this in authority records too,
but our current policies don't authorize it and ILS systems wouldn't
necessarily integrate it well with our manifestation bibliographic
records. RDA is hopefully leading us to a place where many of these
relationships need only be recorded once.
Adam Schiff
^^
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 Tue, 21 Apr 2009, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
When RDA, to embody Works - expressions - manifestations - items (aka
WEMI) - was first being bruited, frequent mention was made of Gone
With the Wind.
The novel and motion picture are two different works, not two
manifestations of the same work. In the brave new bibliographic
universe of WEMI, a note and added entry in the records for
each would be required to link to the others, just as now.
At present, we usually enter a note and added entry for the novel in
the record for the motion picture, but not for the motion picture in
the record for the novel. It would only require a change in practice,
not convoluted analysis and complex new rules, to begin doing so.
The reason we have not done so, I suspect, is the same reason that
780/785 were not extended to monographs - to link successive editions
-, at the time of format integration. In the days of card catalogues,
such reverse linkage would have required the pulling, changing, and
refiling of a set of cards. Such is no longer the case. It would not
be that difficult to increase linkage among records as they now exist.
What is needed is ILS/OPAC development to show those linkages.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
