Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[email protected]>: > 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'.
I haven't heard that interpretation before. As far as I know, the Work does not represent the expression nor the manifestation -- in fact, I believe that FRBR defines the classes as logically disjoint (although it doesn't say this explicitly). This is how FRBR core interpreted the classes: "No member of this class can also be a member of expression, manifestation or item. Having a realization, a creator or a subject implies being a member of this class. Things are a member of this class if they are the value of a realization of or a creator of. " Unfortunately, FRBRer, as defined in the Metadata Registry, doesn't go into this level of detail, so it's hard to know. I would be happy if Work did represent the whole, I just don't know how to know if it does. I can ask Gordon Dunsire, who has been working with the FRBR group and created the FRBRer registration. I'll report what he says. kc > > 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] > -- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet _______________________________________________ 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]
