It's kind of arbitrary whether they are considered the same work or
different work. But the library community has decided to consider them
different works, for a bunch of reasons that are probably documented
somewhere or other
So if they're different works, why do they need to be linked? Precisely
because it's a kind of arbitrary decision, and a user may well be
interested to find that there's a film version of the novel, or to find
the original novel the film was based on -- and only by linking them
somehow in the record can our systems then display that related work to
the user.
Some systems may even decide to group them together as one 'work' in the
display, even though our record-keeping-system considers them seperate
work. That linking would allow an individual system to do that, if it so
chose.
Jonathan.
Christoph Schmidt-Supprian wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but why are the film and the novel two different
works? Are they not different expressions of the same work, that is,
is the film not an adaptation of the novel? And if they are separate
works, why do they need to be linked to each other?
I'm still a novice in FRBR and don't expect anyone to go into great
detail of what might be very basic knowledge to most of you, but if
there is an obvious and short explanation, I would really appreciate
hearing it!
Regards,
Christoph
-----
Dr. Christoph Schmidt-Supprian
Assistant Librarian
Bibliographic Data Management
Trinity College Library
Dublin
(e) schm...@tcd.ie
(t) +353 +1 896 1659
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Adam L. Schiff
<asch...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
The link between the novel and the film is best done just once - in the two
work records for the novel and the film that RDA is leading us to in some
hopefully not too distant future - rather than in every bibliographic record
for each manifestation. We could do this in authority records too, but our
current policies don't authorize it and ILS systems wouldn't necessarily
integrate it well with our manifestation bibliographic records. RDA is
hopefully leading us to a place where many of these relationships need only
be recorded once.
Adam Schiff
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
When RDA, to embody Works - expressions - manifestations - items (aka
WEMI) - was first being bruited, frequent mention was made of "Gone
With the Wind".
The novel and motion picture are two different works, not two
manifestations of the same work. In the brave new bibliographic
universe of WEMI, a note and added entry in the records for
each would be required to link to the others, just as now.
At present, we usually enter a note and added entry for the novel in
the record for the motion picture, but not for the motion picture in
the record for the novel. It would only require a change in practice,
not convoluted analysis and complex new rules, to begin doing so.
The reason we have not done so, I suspect, is the same reason that
780/785 were not extended to monographs - to link successive editions
-, at the time of format integration. In the days of card catalogues,
such reverse linkage would have required the pulling, changing, and
refiling of a set of cards. Such is no longer the case. It would not
be that difficult to increase linkage among records as they now exist.
What is needed is ILS/OPAC development to show those linkages.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
