To go back to this from Martha:
The key issue for work vs. manifestation is content vs. container --
content always must be in a container to have a physical existence in
the real world! In addition, the definition of a work is subjective,
esoteric and controversial-- if I do a softcover, a hardcover, and
audiobooks on both tapes and CSs, then I must assign four ISBNs to the
one work-- but another person and I may differ on whether another book
I
write with almost the same content but targeted to a slightly different
audience (e.g., college vs. corporate) is a different work or a
derivative.
Yes.
Also, what about an edited book that contains a preface and summary by
the editor and 10 other chapters by different authors? Is the book the
editor's work that also contains the works of other authors? The
problem is even more complex when multi-media content is added to the
database -- what is the "work" for a song? -- the lyric, the melody,
the
arrangement, some combination of them, etc.
Well, it also solves problems because you group records under a common
work. You can say, for example, that all of these share the same
Beethoven Symphony work:
the original score (a textual expression)
some 1980 performance by some symphony somewhere (a sound/musical
expression)
You can then go on to say that the latter has a variety of
manifestations; say:
a live radio broadcast in 1980
a 1981 LP recording
a 1985 digital CD
... etc.
The FRBR helps in circumstances like that. In more textual stuff, it
helps to handle stuff like translations.
Still, it's worth noting that the vast majority of the works I store
have a single expression, and that citation practice happens at the
manifestation level. So it's an open question whether it's rigor is
necessary here.
Bruce
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
