Karen Coyle said:
Could you explain how authority work records would take care of the FRBR
Group 1 entities? That might be a nifty solution if it could be made to
work. (There's nothing that says that the FRBR entities must be
expressed in the bibliographic record, at least not yet.)
Martha Yee wrote:
We need a model that recognizes that many works important to our users
are identified by BOTH their authors and their titles. We need a
model that recognizes that the author is more important as an
attribute of a work than as an entity in its own right. Catalogs are
Karen Coyle said:
The entities in a model like FRBR are just the things you are going
to work with. For example, in AACR and MARC we have names; in the
former they are headings (authors, added authors) ...
Such over simplification worries me, perhaps because models we have
seen of possible
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: July 3, 2007 11:11 AM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Wrong model--entity relationship?
Martha Yee wrote:
We
From an optimistic and possibly naive perspective, here's how I see
our terms sorting out.
Entities are conceptual things whose primary characteristic is
their uniqueness within a given ontological domain. You can have
multiple names for an entity, but not two entities which are truly
the same
When FRBR first came out, we approved, because it was the first time there
had been an attempt to standardize the definitions of work and edition that
we had been using for hundreds of years, and we thought these definitions
would help us communicate more effectively with system design people.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Martha Yee wrote:
Can anyone on this list point us to working entity-relationship
model applications accessible over the web in which we can see one
entity being used in the user-readable string that identifies
another entity in all displays (both lists and single
7 matches
Mail list logo
