Karen Coyle wrote: > > way FRBR requires you to. Another option would be to have them all be > related to a defined whole -- a defined "bibliographic entity." Note, > however, that the FRBR review group rejects that view (no, I don't > know what their reasoning is.) That is another possible model that > would be interesting to play with.
A side discussion, but I don't understand the difference between the "defined whole bibliographic entity" you mention, and a FRBR Work in the first place. I think that's what a FRBR Work already is. So I'm not sure what the FRBR group rejects, unless they're agreeing with me that that's what the Work entity already is. What reasons will a FRBR Work not work as this "bibliographic whole entity", or how do you see it being different from a FRBR Work? I suspect that some such failings of FRBR Work may really be reasons that FRBR Work needs to be tweaked or enhanced, not reasons you need another entity. Jonathan _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
