I mean,I'm saying that something you want to be true for all E M and I of a Work _is_ about the Work, whether a person you talked to on the FRBR committee recognized that or not (which may just be a misunderstanding), it is a fundamental consequence of the FRBR model, I suggest, and the only way it makes sense to use the FRBR model, and completely compatible with the FRBR model.
Consider, all the attributes actually declared on a Work _are_ true for all (past and future) E M and I of the work, right? It is no surprise that there are additional attributes you might need, either generally or for a particular application, that are not mentioned in the FRBR model document. The model is just a beginning, just the skeleton. Karen Coyle wrote: > Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[email protected]>: > > >> The Work represents the set of all Expressions that belong to it. The >> "set of all expressions" is not _an expression_, it is the set of all >> expressions, so, yes, they are disjoint sets, the entities, in that >> sense. Likewise, the expression represents "the set of all >> manifestations", etc. So yes, a work entity can't _also_ be an >> expression or manifestation, because the work is the set of all >> expressions (and their constituent manifestations, and their constituent >> items), which is a different thing. >> >> > > Jonathan, I know you think this to be true, but the reply from the > representative of the FRBR working group says that this is not so. I, > too, would like this to be the case. To make it so, we need to have > this conversation with the people developing the FRs. > > kc > > > >> I am pretty sure work represents the whole in this sense, and that this >> does not contradict the FRBR definitions at all, is implicit in them, >> and is in my opinion the most useful and least confusing way to consider >> them. >> >> If there's something you want to say about all >> expressions/manifestations/items within a Work, I think it makes sense >> to say it about the Work. I don't think adding another entity into the >> mix will clarify more than it confuses. It might be helpful to take >> this a little bit more concrete, come up with examples of assertions >> you'd want to apply to "the whole" to see if they make sense to apply to >> the Work. I am predicting that all of them will make perfect sense to >> apply to the Work. Because that is the nature of the Work. >> >> I and several other people have commented before on the usefulness of >> considering the FRBR entities as set relationships, I think it's the >> best way to avoid getting confused about what they are, myself. Here are >> a couple places I suggest that on my blog, but I'm definitely not the >> only one to have noticed/commented on this. >> >> http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/frbr-considered-as-set-relationships/ >> a relevant side issue: >> http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/notes-frbr-wemi-entities-physicality-interchangeability-merging/ >> >> Karen Coyle wrote: >> >>> 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] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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]
