Dear all, If the scope note says "This class comprises the intellectual or artistic partial realisations of works", then complete realisations (i.e., instances of F22 Self-Contained Expression) are de facto excluded, which obviously is not good. A better wording could be: "This class comprises the intellectual or artistic (either complete or only partial) realisations of works" but a native English-speaker would certainly have better proposals. The problem is not that "an F2 Expression cannot fully realize a F1 Work", but that an F2 Expression *may* not fully realize an F1 Work. I'm not quite sure it is really necessary to introduce these details in the scope note for F2 Expression, but let's see how the group responds. Best wishes, Patrick
Message de : "Athina Kritsotaki" <[email protected]> 29/04/2013 11:18 Envoyé par : [email protected] Pour [email protected] Copie Objet [Crm-sig] new FRBR ISSUE FRBR ISSUE:10 Title:Correcting the scope note of F2 Dear all, The scope note of F2 Expression should be changed from: “This class comprises the intellectual or artistic realisations of works in the form of…” to: “This class comprises the intellectual or artistic partial realisations of works in the form of…” in order to specify that an F2 Expression cannot fully realize a F1 Work, especially in cases of expressions fragments that are fragments, parts and in that sense, cannot realize the concept of a whole work. This conclusion is consistent to the property R3 is realised in, domain:F1 Work and range:F22 Self-contained Expression (and not F2 Expression), which proves that a fully realisation of a work results only in a self-contained expression. so, think about this, Athina Kritsotaki _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig Exposition Guy Debord, un art de la guerre - du 27 mars au 13 juillet 2013 - BnF - François-Mitterrand / Grande Galerie Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement.
