(Sorry for the late weigh-in...)
From Ross Singer:
I totally agree we're
past the point of hand waviness and just need to model this stuff
/pragmatically/ (i.e. in a manner we think we could actually use), at
scale, and have something to point to.
And then release whatever comes out of
I admit I'm not seeing the problem with your scenario, I like the
contains solution.
The contains relationship hangs off of whatever entities you choose to
hang it off of, no?
If neither you nor anyone else has chosen to do the authority work to
collocate, say, different versions of Moby
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote:
the records... It might wok, I really want to try to model this. Wish we
could get some folks together for a 1/2 day somewhere and JUST DO IT.
+1 to this. Maybe a whole day or two, though. I totally agree we're
past the
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Karen Coyle wrote:
One thing I am finding about FRBR (and want to think about more) is that one
seems to come up with different conclusions depending on whether one works
down from Work or works up from Item. The assumption that an aggregate in a
bound volume is an
A big mistake, if it means what we think it means, that RDA has decided
that a given Manifestation can not contain several Expressions.
Riley, Jenn wrote:
What the RDA folks (that is, the folks
who have created RDA, the JSC members) said (some of them off-list to
me), is that if your
What the RDA folks (that is, the folks
who have created RDA, the JSC members) said (some of them off-list to
me), is that if your manifestation is an aggregate, then your
Expression must be an equal aggregate. So the Expression is pretty
much one-to-one with the Manifestation. (And I think we
Quoting Riley, Jenn jenlr...@indiana.edu:
I see this conclusion as RDA's, but not FRBR's. The FRBR report explicitly
says there can be a many-to-one relationship between Expressions and a
Manifestation (that is, a Manifestation can embody several Expressions), and
the V/FRBR project takes that
Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
So there's no way to call an aggregate a Work/Expression _instead of_
a manifestation, if that aggregate is an actual physical item in your
hand.
No, no one said instead of. What the RDA folks (that is, the folks
who
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
Karen Coyle wrote:
I think the confusion is that I believe there are MORE THAN ONE
wemi element involved in an agregate.
Collected Works of John Doe (Work1)
expressed by: Collected Works of John Doe (first edition) (Expression1)
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Karen Coyle wrote:
naturally favors the package over the contents. So we'll have some works
that are what users think of as works, and other works that represent the
publisher's package -- which sometimes will be something that makes sense
Joe Hourcle wrote:
The group's two proposals were to model aggregates as works, or as
manifestatons, so RDA seems to be on their own modeling them as
expressions:
See, this is what I don't understa.d As works, or as manifestations??
In the FRBR model, every single manifestation belongs
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Joe Hourcle wrote:
The group's two proposals were to model aggregates as works, or as
manifestatons, so RDA seems to be on their own modeling them as
expressions:
See, this is what I don't understa.d As works, or as manifestations?? In
the
Karen Coyle wrote:
And if the individual things inside the aggregate ALSO exist on their
own independently (or in OTHER aggregations)... and you want to model
that (which you may NOT want to spend time modelling in the individual
cases, depending on context)... dont' those individual things
Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
If a text aggregate is an expression -- that expression must belong
to SOME work though, right?
Right, and this is where I get a bit confused. Can an aggregate of
poems be work? Honestly, I have trouble making sense of that.
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
Karen Coyle wrote:
Well, I disagree with the conclusion on the RDA-L list, and said so
there too!
If you have a collection that includes Beethoven's Symphony A, and
Beethoven's Symphony B, and Beethoven's Symphony A is also published
separately
Karen Coyle wrote:
I think this becomes a question of how we express WEMI -- you can
always link from/to any WEMI using contains or contained in -- so
you can always link to all of the Works in an aggregate. What I would
like to achieve is for different decisions (like one community
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
So there's no way to call an aggregate a Work/Expression _instead of_
a manifestation, if that aggregate is an actual physical item in your
hand.
No, no one said instead of. What the RDA folks (that is, the folks
who have created RDA, the JSC
Jenn, I can't claim to have spent sufficient time looking at this,
but... are you on the RDA-L list? Because we just went through a very
long discussion there in which we concluded that a text aggregate
(possibly analogous to a sound recording aggregate) is an expression,
not a set of
If a text aggregate is an expression -- that expression must belong to
SOME work though, right?
And if the individual things inside the aggregate ALSO exist on their
own independently (or in OTHER aggregations)... and you want to model
that (which you may NOT want to spend time modelling in
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu:
If a text aggregate is an expression -- that expression must belong
to SOME work though, right?
Right, and this is where I get a bit confused. Can an aggregate of
poems be work? Honestly, I have trouble making sense of that.
And if the
This may be one area where FRBR is not exactly clear on the directions its
relationships take, or how extensive the cataloguing should be.
An album with Beethoven's 7, 8 9th Symphonies performed by the London
Philharmonic would be a manifestation containing three independent expressions
of
Quoting Andrew Hankinson andrew.hankin...@gmail.com:
This may be one area where FRBR is not exactly clear on the
directions its relationships take, or how extensive the cataloguing
should be.
One?! I'd say one of...
An album with Beethoven's 7, 8 9th Symphonies performed by the
] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
[li...@kcoyle.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 6:22 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Variations/FRBR project relases FRBR XML Schemas
Jenn, I can't claim to have spent sufficient time looking at this,
but... are you on the RDA-L list? Because we just
@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Variations/FRBR project relases FRBR XML
Schemas
Quoting Andrew Hankinson andrew.hankin...@gmail.com:
An album with Beethoven's 7, 8 9th Symphonies performed by the
London Philharmonic would be a manifestation containing three
independent
The Variations/FRBR project at Indiana University (http://vfrbr.info) is
pleased to announce the release of an initial set of XML Schemas for the
encoding of FRBRized bibliographic data. The Variations/FRBR project aims to
provide a concrete testbed for the FRBR conceptual model, and these XML
25 matches
Mail list logo
