If you model "work of works" MobyDick+A, then you've simply got to make
sure the "contains" relationship is there to the "simple" work "Moby
Dick", right?
Then that would allow the particular manifestation of MobyDick+A to be
grouped with all the "MobyDick"s, since the system knows it contains a
manifestation of MobyDick in it.
What are we doing having this conversation on Code4Lib anyway, we're
probably horribly boring and frustrating most of the list.
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting "Beacom, Matthew" <[email protected]>:
Karen,
You said:
From the FRBR model we know that a manifestation is the embodiment
of an expression. From the manifestation, we infer another level of
thinking about the item in hand, another abstraction, the FRBR
expression. Going up the IMEW ladder, we see there is no gap where
the expression should be. The expression is simply an inference we
make from the manifestation according to the model. It's a
formality. According to the model, an expression for the
augmented/supplemented/whatevered Moby Dick exists. It must. And
from the expression, let's call it "Moby Dick+a E", we infer the
work, "Moby Dick+a W", again, according to the model. So working up
the IMEW model, we see the augmented/supplemented/whatevered Moby
Dick that I'm calling "Moby Dick+a" is a work, an expression, a
manifestation and item.
I'll have to read through this a few more times, but this puts you in
the "work of works" camp:
http://www.ifla.org/en/events/frbr-working-group-on-aggregates
Unfortunately, I don't think this serves the user well, who may be
looking for "Moby Dick" and not "Moby Dick+a". It's also not how Work
is defined in AACR or RDA. So I'd like to understand what the user
would see having done a search on Moby Dick. It seems like they'd see
what we have today, which is a long list of different versions.
Personally, I'd rather see something like:
http://upstream.openlibrary.org/works/OL102749W/Moby_Dick
And I don't think your model allows that.
kc
Coming down the WEMI model, we skipped over the expression level.
Why? I think it is because of a couple of things common to how we
think. First, when we use the WEMI model in this top-down direction,
we tend to reify the abstractions and look for "real" instances of
them. Second, when we move down the WEMI model, we deduce the next
level from the "evidence" of the one above or evidence from the
physical world. Since the abstract levels of the FRBR WEMI model
provide no evidence for deduction, and there is no evidence of an
expression in the item, and all there is to rely on is the model's
claim that "there be expressions here," then we don't see the
expression as real. Working up from the item, the step at the
expression level is more clear and more clearly a formal part of the
modeling process. It isn't a different decision about expression,
it is a different view of the model that allows us to more clearly
see the expression.
Is this way of thinking, useful? It may be, when or if we think the
editorial work that created the augmented/etc. Moby Dick, is worth
noting and tracking. Consider for instance the 150 the anniversary
edition of Moby Dick published by the Northwestern University Press
in 1991. It may make sense and provide some utility for readers for
cataloger's to consider this edition a different work than the
Norton Critical Edition, 2d edition, of Moby Dick. Because we like
to relate a work to a creator of the work when we can, I'll point
out the creator of each of these works is the editor or editorial
group that edited the text of Moby Dick-if they did that--and
compiled the edition. And we might distinguish them by use of the
editor's name or the publisher's as we do in this case.
Returning to "Moby Dick+a" for a moment, I want to point out a
complexity that I skipped over so far. There is more than one work
involved in "Moby Dick+a." The first is the edition itself, "Moby
Dick+a," a second is "Moby Dick," itself, a third would be the
introduction written for this edition, etc. It would be possible to
have the same work/expression of "Moby Dick" in two different
"edition-works" of Moby Dick. If the same text of "Moby Dick" is
simply repeated in a new context of apparatus--introductions,
afterwords, etc., one could have a work/expression "Moby Dick+a" and
another "Moby Dick+b" that each contains the same work/expression,
"Moby Dick." What makes sense to me is noting and tracking both of
these--the edited augmentation and the core work. Other works within
the augmented work may also be worth noting, etc., but how far one
would follow that path depends on the implementation goals.
Matthew Beacom
