I'm confused why you need an entity for 'the whole thing'. I suggest that any assertions you think you want to make on 'the whole thing' are better made on a particular Work, and I suggest that's the intent of the FRBR model. The Work entity already is best thought of a set including all of it's EMI (a way of thinking not in the FRBR document, but _entirely_ consistent with it) -- any assertions on the Work already are on 'the whole thing'.
What do you gain from adding another entity to the model to represent 'the whole thing'? I suggest it would represent no more and no less than the Work entity already does. Jonathan Karen Coyle wrote: > Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[email protected]>: > > > > >> 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. >> > > > Jonathan, my "whole entity" would be WEMI, not just Work. It would be > the entire Group 1. > > kc > > >> 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] >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ 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]
