--- Begin Message ---
Dear Patrick,
I fully agree with what you write below. You stress below a definition more
based on the observation of
the instances than on the plan. This duality is common to the ontological notion
of a class. Classes can be defined by "intention", i.e. the ideal by which we
measure
that something is instance of a class, or by "extension", i.e. the factual
instances.
A definition by "intention" is open to the future. The definition allows more
instances
to appear in the world at any time. The definition by "extension" closes the
set once
forever. I was not sure, to which degree the latter holds or not in reality.
The term "intention of a class" does not only pertain to a plan, but also to a
(not necessarily explicit) set of characteristics.
Question: Once a thousand of books is produced, under an ISBN, and sold. A year
later,
the publisher decides to resume production. Can that be under the same ISBN? Can
that still be the same manifestation? If yes, the class "Manifestation" is open
to
the future, and intentionally defined.
The fact, that a "Manifestation" pertains to physical attributes, brings the
concept very close to the notion of "Type", as usual in archeology and museum
documentation (often referred to with the misleading term "Object Name").
Therefore I spoke in my comment also about metaclasses. Now, a formalism of
metaclasses
is definitely a construct too mathematical for the CRM. But systematically
we have bypassed such formalisms by introducing Types and Conceptual Objects,
were a class is simultaneously a thing to group real world objects and an object
of human activity and discourse. I think we have so far not encountered any
logical
problems in doing so. I expect our discussion about Natural History
requirements will be
full of processes managing Types and their relationship to instances.
In this light, we can regard an Item as "has type: Manifestation". In Man-Made
Objects,
Types are directly related (but not necessarily identical) to the plan by which
they are made. I would like to stress, that the notion you refer below:
"all of their physical attributes are instantiated in the same way at the time
of their production" is relative in the strict sense. If that would be true in
an
absolute sense, one could not distinguish items. I have proposed to see "all
physical attributes" as relative to the functionality of the product, which
includes
of course all aesthetic aspects. It does not include minor damage, wrinkles,
wholes and stains in the paper below a threshold, changes in smell, finger
prints
etc. I even assume, that creating a set pertaining to one Manifestation with
a running sequence number would not be regarded as a feature breaking the
homogeneity
of the set. A museum may even gather characteristic "drop-outs" or
mis-productions
of such a set ("B-quality"). In that sense, the Manifestation is not purely
observationally
defined.
Considering the fact, that the manifestation implies the information from the
Expression in a
clearly recognizable form, and the Type aspects you have stressed below, one
could
see Manifestation as subclass of Information Object and Type.
The comparison between FRBR and the CRM is not a mapping like those of simple
data structures.
FRBR and the CRM are parallel in the attempt to interpret data structures. This
makes
the comparison intellectually demanding, but on the other side it is an
important measure
for the validity of the CRM concepts. It will be important to discuss the scope
of the
CRM with respect to the view the FRBR offers and the kind of interoperability
we want to achieve in practical terms to library data. Four scenaria are
possible:
1) Show a way to interpret FRBR compatible data as CRM compatible data, as a
"museum view".
2) If necessary, extent the CRM by notions that allow to map back to FRBR
compatible data structures.
3) Propose a CRM-compatible, but discrete extension for including FRBR
semantics consistently in the CRM,
preserving FRBR concepts, but without making it part of the CRM.
4) Propose such extensions as integral part of the CRM.
best,
Martin
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Dear Martin,
> Thank you for your comments.
> I'll strive to add an introduction to my proposal of a mapping, and to sum up
> the problems I had to deal with; I originally intended to do so but I wanted
> to
> send my document on Thursday last week, as I had promised, because I was to
> leave my office until yesterday and I didn't want to leave my promise
> unfulfilled, but I hadn't time enough to write an introduction before I left
> on
> Thursday.
> Actually, one might consider that in FRBR's "group 1" of entities there are
> only
> two entities: "content" and "materialization". "Work" and "expression" might
> be
> regarded as a refinement of "content", and "manifestation" and "item" as a
> refinement of "materialization". "Work" and "expression" are purely
> intellectual, exclusively in the mind of man, whereas "item" is purely
> physical;
> "manifestation" on turn is at the junction between mind and matter. I
> interpret
> it as already something physical -- a set of things, as you put it -- but you
> are right when you say that "all that unites the items of a manifestation is
> the
> sharing of characteristics". I don't quite agree with your comparison to a
> blueprint for a car: for me, a manifestation is not analogous to a blueprint
> for
> a car, but to all cars that have been produced according to the same
> blueprint.
> However, perhaps a more accurate definition for "manifestation" would read
> like:
> "a set of common characteristics normally shared by a number of objects (or:
> items) at the moment they were produced, pertaining at the same time to their
> intellectual content (they all are the embodiment of the same expression), to
> their physical aspect (all of their physical attributes are instantiated in
> the
> same way at the time of their production), and to the commercial aspects of
> their coming to existence (they all have the same relationship to the same
> actor(s) in the role of publisher/producer)".
> I insist that this is not the "orthodox" FRBR definition but my own
> definition,
> as inspired to me today by your own comments. Here is the original FRBR text,
> both for "manifestation" and for "item" (you'll see that it insists on the
> physicality of "manifestation"):
>
> "3.2.3 Manifestation
> The third entity defined in the model is manifestation: the physical
> embodiment
> of an expression of a work.
> The entity defined as manifestation encompasses a wide range of materials,
> including manuscripts, books, periodicals, maps, posters, sound recordings,
> films, video recordings, CD-ROMs, multimedia kits, etc. As an entity,
> manifestation represents all the physical objects that bear the same
> characteristics, in respect to both intellectual content and physical form.
> When a work is realized, the resulting expression of the work may be
> physically
> embodied on or in a medium such as paper, audio tape, video tape, canvas,
> plaster, etc. That physical embodiment constitutes a manifestation of the
> work.
> In some cases there may be only a single physical exemplar produced of that
> manifestation of the work (e.g., an author's manuscript, a tape recorded for
> an
> oral history archive, an original oil painting, etc.). In other cases there
> are
> multiple copies produced in order to facilitate public dissemination or
> distribution. In those cases there is normally a more formal production
> process
> involved, and a publisher, producer, or distributor takes responsibility for
> the
> process. In other cases there may be only a limited number of copies made of
> an
> original exemplar for purposes such as private study (e.g., a dubbing of an
> original recording of a piece of music), or preservation (e.g., a photocopy
> produced on permanent paper of an author's original typescript). Whether the
> scope of pro
> duction is broad (e.g., in the case of publication, etc.) or limited (e.g., in
> the case of copies made for private study, etc.), the set of copies produced
> in
> each case constitutes a manifestation. All copies produced that form part of
> the
> same set are considered to be copies of the same manifestation.
> The boundaries between one manifestation and another are drawn on the basis of
> both intellectual content and physical form. When the production process
> involves changes in physical form the resulting product is considered a new
> manifestation. Changes in physical form include changes affecting display
> characteristics (e.g., a change in typeface, size of font, page layout, etc.),
> changes in physical medium (e.g., a change from paper to microfilm as the
> medium
> of conveyance), and changes in the container (e.g., a change from cassette to
> cartridge as the container for a tape). Where the production process involves
> a
> publisher, producer, distributor, etc., and there are changes signaled in the
> product that are related to publication, marketing, etc. (e.g., a change in
> publisher, repackaging, etc.), the resulting product may be considered a new
> manifestation. Whenever the production process involves modifications,
> additions, deletions, etc. that affect the intellectual or artistic content,
> the
> result is a new manif
> estation embodying a new expression of the work.
> Examples:
> w1 Harry Lindgren's Geometric dissections
> e1 original text entitled Geometric dissections
> m1 the book published in 1964 by Van Nostrand
> e2 revised text entitled Recreational problems in geometric dissections ....
> m1 the book published in 1972 by Dover
>
> w1 J. S. Bach's Six suites for unaccompanied cello
> e1 performances by Janos Starker recorded in 1963 and 1965
> m1 recordings released on 33 1/3 rpm sound discs in 1965 by Mercury
>
> m2 recordings re-released on compact disc in 1991 by Mercury
> e2 performances by Yo-Yo Ma recorded in 1983
> m1 recordings released on 33 1/3 rpm sound discs in 1983 by CBS Records
> m2 recordings re-released on compact disc in 1992 by CBS Records
>
> w1 Jean Jolivet's Vraie description des Gaules....
> e1 the cartographer's original rendering
> m1 the map issued in 1570
> m2 a facsimile reproduction published in 1974 by Hier et demain
>
> w1 The Wall Street Journal
> e1 the Eastern edition
> m1 the print format of the Eastern edition
> m2 the microfilm of the Eastern edition
> e2 the Western edition
> m1 the print format of the Western edition
> m2 the microfilm of the Western edition
> Changes that occur deliberately or even inadvertently in the production
> process
> that affect the copies result, strictly speaking, in a new manifestation. A
> manifestation resulting from such a change may be identified as a particular
> "state" or "issue" of the publication.
> Changes that occur to an individual copy after the production process is
> complete (e.g., the loss of a page, rebinding, etc.) are not considered to
> result in a new manifestation. That copy is simply considered to be an
> exemplar
> (or item) of the manifestation that deviates from the copy as produced.
> Defining manifestation as an entity enables us to name and describe the
> complete
> set of items that result from a single act of physical embodiment or
> production. The entity manifestation serves to describe the shared
> characteristics of copies of a particular publication, edition, release, etc.,
> as well as to describe unique productions such as manuscripts, original oil
> paintings, etc.
> With the entity defined as manifestation we can describe the physical
> characteristics of a set of items and the characteristics associated with the
> production and distribution of that set of items that may be important factors
> in enabling users to choose a manifestation appropriate to their physical
> needs
> and constraints, and to identify and acquire a copy of that manifestation.
> Defining manifestation as an entity also enables us to draw relationships
> between specific manifestations of a work. We can use the relationships
> between
> manifestations to identify, for example, the specific publication that was
> used
> to create a microreproduction.
>
> 3.2.4 Item
> The fourth entity defined in the model is item: a single exemplar of a
> manifestation.
> The entity defined as item is a concrete entity. It is in many instances a
> single physical object (e.g., a copy of a one-volume monograph, a single audio
> cassette, etc.). There are instances, however, where the entity defined as
> item
> comprises more than one physical object (e.g., a monograph issued as two
> separately bound volumes, a recording issued on three separate compact discs,
> etc.).
> In terms of intellectual content and physical form, an item exemplifying a
> manifestation is normally the same as the manifestation itself. However,
> variations may occur from one item to another, even when the items exemplify
> the
> same manifestation, where those variations are the result of actions external
> to the intent of the producer of the manifestation (e.g., damage occurring
> after
> the item was produced, binding performed by a library, etc.).
> Examples:
> w1 Ronald Hayman's Playback
> e1 the author's text edited for publication
> m1 the book published in 1973 by Davis-Poynter
> i1 copy autographed by the author
>
> w1 Allan Wakeman's Jabberwocky
> e1 the author's design for the game and text for the notes m1 the game and
> accompanying notes for teachers issued in 1974 by Longman i1 copy lacking
> notes
> for teachers
> Defining item as an entity enables us to separately identify individual copies
> of a manifestation, and to describe those characteristics that are unique to
> that particular copy and that pertain to transactions such as circulation,
> etc.
> involving that copy.
> Defining the entity called item also enables us to draw relationships between
> individual copies of manifestations. "
>
> Best wishes,
> Patrick
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(810)391609 |
Project Leader SIS | Email: [email protected] |
|
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/proj/isst |
--------------------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
