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.


Quoting Heidrun Wiesenm├╝ller <wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>:

We've had some discussions here in Germany about the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates:

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:
(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

Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Reply via email to