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
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
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
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...
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
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
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
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
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
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'
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
