Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA, and Platonism
After reading RDA and its application of FRBR, it seems thatwe dealing with librarianships application of Platonism, especially inthe descriptions of work, expression, manifestation, and item. There really isno work; it is like a Platonic form, which is reflected in itsphysicality by expression, manifestation, and item. We, as catalogers,actually deal with the item. So perhaps in the real world the relationship shouldbe item, manifestation, expression, work. The item points to the manifestationwhich points to the expression which points to the Platonic ideal, work. Interesting ideas. I have thought in similar terms about the URI identifier, especially as it is rendered in RDF. In one sense, the URI equals the Platonic archetype, or the original form of the idea. Only when it takes on a word that a human can understand, does it become, in a sense, real. Of course, there is a problem: almost nobody in the real world is interested in the work as such. Very few people indeed want the complete work of War and Peace, or of the Atlantic (Monthly) magazine. They want either specific expressions of War and Peace (English, French etc.), or they want individual articles or issues. People are also interested in different versions of expressions (e.g. translated by Constance Garnett into English, 1932 version) but very few are also interested in the Greek and Japanese expressions as well. Although some perhaps. A related issue is the problem between the expression vs. the manifestation. The manifestation is defined in physical terms that have little or nothing to do with the output of the author, i.e. 245 abc, 250, 260, 300, 4xx. These are all determined by the printers/publishers. Throughout the individual printings, the author may have corrected some points throughout the text in ways that do not affect the fields noted above. I submit that it is these changes that people are interested in. It's always curious to physically examine and compare items that are bibliographically the same. They often look quite different, and there is a sneaking suspicion that there are lots of other changes within the text, although the paging is the same. Or there is the opposite case, where the 245, 250, etc. are different, but the actual text is most probably the same. Of course, this is the way it has always been, but I don't think that simply transferring these methods in to the virtual world will work very well at all. Still ruminating over existentialism Jim Weinheimer
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA, and Platonism
-Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim Sent: 16 decembrie 2008 10:29 To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA, and Platonism Of course, there is a problem: almost nobody in the real world is interested in the work as such. Very few people indeed want the complete work of War and Peace, or of the Atlantic (Monthly) magazine. They want either specific expressions of War and Peace (English, French etc.), or they want individual articles or issues. People are also interested in different versions of expressions (e.g. translated by Constance Garnett into English, 1932 version) but very few are also interested in the Greek and Japanese expressions as well. Although some perhaps. Yes, of course. But an essay about War and Peace could be interested in the work W P, in its most abstract form (I was just about to use the word incarnation :-). Jim Weinheimer Dan
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA, and Platonism
Dan Matei wrote: Of course, there is a problem: almost nobody in the real world is interested in the work as such. Yes, of course. But an essay about War and Peace could be interested in the work W P, in its most abstract form (I was just about to use the word incarnation :-). I was about to make this same remark, but now will expand on it ;-). Scholars study the work (generally), not manifestations. When War and Peace appears as a subject heading on a book, it is the work that is being referenced. Similarly, if you and I get together and talk about how much we loved the book War and Peace, it doesn't matter if we read it in different editions or even if we read it in different translations. I would say that more attention is paid to the work than to its manifestations, EXCEPT in bookstores and libraries -- in other words, manifestation and item matter mainly when you are heading for the FRBR obtain and then often only because you are stuck with what is currently available in print or on a library shelf. But the reason for frbr-zing our library catalogs is that our users come into the library looking for a copy of War and Peace to read, with the work in mind. Unconsciously they may be aiming at a particular expression: War and Peace implies the English language translation, and that's kind of a given for users in an English-speaking community who call the work War and Peace; Physician's Desk Reference may imply the latest edition, or the latest edition available. There will be times when a particular manifestation is desired, but I'm seeing that as the unusual case. And particular items are mainly of interest to rare book scholars and circulation systems. 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] FRBR, RDA, and Platonism
James said:
Of course, there is a problem: almost nobody in the real world is interested
in =
the work as such. ... very few are also interested in the Greek and
Japanese expressions ...
The difficulty I have with the concept of such links is that if a
particular collection did not have those expressions/manifestations,
they would not have the records to which to link. Should they link to
records via the Internet for resources they do not own, or which are
not available electronically for remote access? Presumably a library
catalogue would only have the records for manifestations available in
their collection either in physical form or by remote access, with
associated expression and work records?
The links in any work/expression/manifestation record would differ for
every library, since no two libraries would have the same galaxy of
expressions/manifestations. Wouldn't this halt exchange of records
which could be used without extensive local changes? Wasn't this the
fact which killed multivers at the Toronto Conference?
How would we as a cataloguing outsource agency know what
expressions/manifestations are in a particular client collection?
Even if we had access to their catalogue, could they afford to pay us
to do the checking required? Could *any* library afford to do it for
themselves?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] AACR, RDA and Platonism
Gene Fieg wrote: After reading RDA and its application of FRBR, it seems that we dealing with librarianship’s application of Platonism, especially in the descriptions of work, expression, manifestation, and item. There really is no “work”; it is like a Platonic form, which is reflected in its physicality by expression, manifestation, and item. We, as catalogers, actually deal with the item. So perhaps in the real world the relationship should be item, manifestation, expression, work. The item points to the manifestation which points to the expression which points to the Platonic ideal, work. But exactly what is it this last pointer can point to? It helps to look at the questions philosophers ask: Aristotle / St. Thomas: What _was_ there before everything else? (the a priori) Clearly, this is the quest for The Work Plato / St. Augustine: What _is_ there actually and really? We only ever get to see shadows of the real thing. Even the item must then be viewed as a mere shadow! Kant: What _can_ we know? (esp. about a prioris) We can never know everything, but we should keep asking since we can always find more! Who, if not catalogers, would subscribe to this? Sartre/Camus (Existentialism): What is our potential? Or, What can we make of what we have? Finding ourselves, as we do, to be thrown into a sea of legacy data, we need to figure out how to make the best of uses in the absurdity of it all. A bit hard to sum up, but FWIW, here's a try, although it's not Friday: In the beginning is the work. What can we know about it? Does it exist - or should we rather doubt it? Where is the essence? Just in its author's mind or only in the objects that we find? In documents, on paper, or in files where we can measure it in ounces, inches, miles, put down on marble, paper, parchment, leather, with chisel, pencil, brush or feather? But then, the author turns around to make a new expression, and we take to view the first as the ideal, and others, manifestly real, are shadows only which the Work has cast onto a canvas where they last to tell about the Work from which they rose - this holds for poems as for prose. Now, ever further will the versions flower and overwhelm a cataloger's power, to link the last ones with the oldest, the hottest items with the coldest. How do we get down to this ocean's ground, where the unmoving mover can be found? B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA, and Platonism
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) wrote: The difficulty I have with the concept of such links is that if a particular collection did not have those expressions/manifestations, they would not have the records to which to link. Should they link to records via the Internet for resources they do not own, or which are not available electronically for remote access? Presumably a library catalogue would only have the records for manifestations available in their collection either in physical form or by remote access, with associated expression and work records? The links in any work/expression/manifestation record would differ for every library, since no two libraries would have the same galaxy of expressions/manifestations. Wouldn't this halt exchange of records which could be used without extensive local changes? Wasn't this the fact which killed multivers at the Toronto Conference? Pardons to all. Obviously, I didn't make myself clear in my musings. I don't question for a moment that we need to catalog the work aspects for all sorts of reasons, but at least in relation to texts, I still believe that these are some of the least used areas of the bibliographic record by the public. Work is needed by librarians for various reasons, although apparently LC does not completely concur since they dropped series authority records. Also, based on my experience, the uniform titles are some of the least understood parts of the records. I would venture to guess that where work is used, and understood, best by the public at large would be in musical recordings. People want the work and to know the specific expressions and (my own bugbear since I don't believe in its existence) °manifestation to get the item. But I definitely want to retain the work aspects in the records! We just have to recognize some of the issues involved and some of the problems experienced by our users. Jim Weinheimer
