Heidrun,
this is a really devilish problem, but I think the solution is not
going to be found within FRBR. That is because FRBR creates a tight
coupling between W, E, and M that (IMO) does not fit the reality of
publishing. In essence, nearly EVERY published item is an aggregate -
books have prefaces or illustrations from other sources; musical
recordings almost always include more than one Work; serials are of
course aggregates by their nature. If each aggregate Manifestation is
linked to an aggregate Expression, and each aggregate Expression to an
aggregate Work.... well, then we have a one-to-one between
Manifestations, Expressions and Works. We're back to ISBD or MARC in
that case.
Then, if our assumption is that users are interested in the individual
Works as well as, or instead of, the aggregate, then another entry has
to be made for each individual Work as well. I don't think that's how
most of us envision FRBR.
I find there to be a conflict between the FRBR view and the need to
catalog a package. And I don't think FRBR resolves it well, which is
what the aggregate group struggled with. But maybe the problem is
deeper.
kc
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller <wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>:
We've had some discussions here in Germany about the Final Report of
the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates:
http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf
The general feeling was that the report, though laudable as a
philosophical endeavor, is not particularly helpful in practical
terms. A number of critical points were raised, and a lot of
questions remained unanswered.
I've now written a short paper on this topic (four and a half pages,
but including lots of pictures), which can be downloaded from my
Mendeley profile:
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/
(the only entry under "Working papers", at the bottom of the
publications list)
or directly, using this link: http://tinyurl.com/7scf9rm
My main points are that the model proposed by the Working Group
- is counterintutive because the aggregating work is on on the same
hierarchical level as the individual works
- doesn't provide a helpful solution for the relationship between
e.g. an article in a collection and a self-archiving copy of this in
a repository
- leads to rather odd results when applied to e.g. a monographic series
Also, an alternative model is proposed.
I would be very grateful for any feedback or discussion about the
ideas presented in this paper (which, of course, is only a first
draft). I'm sending this to RDA-List and AUTOCAT (sorry for
cross-posting).
Heidrun Wiesenmueller
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
