1] Having had a quick look at this it reeks of complexity, exceptions and different user communities having different practices and "rules". Therefore my first reaction is to suggest that this is dealt with using "P2 has type E55 Type". I am also sure that this is sometimes the confusion of different appellations for the same thing with different things each having their own identity. 2] I think that the cultural division of works may well have an impact on their constraining supertype. For example a choral work may be viewed as a textual work and a musical work and thus have different constraining supertypes. My thoughts SdS
Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of João Oliveira Sent: 16 November 2007 13:23 To: [email protected] Subject: [Crm-sig] Suggestion to FRBRoo Following, two suggestions for the next FRBRoo meeting. Suggestion 1) Use the Work Individual/Complex/Container Design Pattern to Actors Current: E39 Actor ---- F77 Corporate Body (=E74 Group) ---- F8 Person (=E21 Person) Suggestion: E39 Actor ---- Fnn Individual Actor -------- F77 Corporate Body (=E74 Group) -------- F8 Person (=E21 Person) -------- Fnn Persona ---- Fnn Complex Actor ---- Fnn Container Actor -------- Fnn Collective Actor ------------ Fnn Family ------------ Fnn Collective Persona The Complex Actor class deals with the evolution of Actor entity on time. For example, one Corporate Body evolves in time like one Work. The Container Actor class deals with collective actors, like Families and collective Personas as in the following examples from FRAD: (personas established or adopted jointly by two or more individuals (e.g., Ellery Queen joint pseudonym of Frederic Dannay and Manfred B. Lee); and personas established or adopted by a group (e.g., Betty Crocker)). Suggestion 2) Change the R1 Scope Note Current R1 Scope Note: This property associates an instance of F1 Work with an instance of E55 Type that any expression of that work should also have for it to be identified as an expression of the same work. The nature of what constitutes a "constraining supertype" varies according to cataloguing rules and conventions. As the entity-relationship version of FRBR puts it, "The concept of what constitutes a work and where the line of demarcation lies between one work and another may in fact be viewed differently from one culture to another. Consequently the bibliographic conventions established by various cultures or national groups may differ in terms of the criteria they use for determining the boundaries between one work and another." (FRBR Final Report, p. 16). Suggestion: This property associates an instance of F1 Work with an instance of E55 Type that any expression of that work should also have for it to be identified as an expression of the same work. The nature of what constitutes a "constraining supertype" varies according to cataloguing rules and conventions. Justification: The "form of work" is not a cultural issue. The FRBR Final Report citation is about Work limits (scope) and not Work form. The Work limits are a culture issue. Regards, João Alberto de Oliveira Lima _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
