> -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller > Sent: January 9, 2012 9:43 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates >
.. > > Note that there is no line connecting the aggregating work or the > aggregating expression with the individual works and expressions. I > don't think that these lines were merely left out (perhaps to make the > diagram easier to read), but that they really aren't there at all. No, the scope of the report emphasized the primary relationships, but the nature of the entities cover what is already covered by other relationships, such as existing whole-part relationships. There are already many conventions for situations when individual entities interact with collective entities, and they are still valid even when primary relationships are explored and enumerated. This quote from the report shows that all the common situations for collections within a single resource apply to the analysis of aggregating expressions: "A distinctive characteristic of collections is that the individual works are usually similar in type and/or genre such as a collection of novels by a particular author, songs by a particular artist, or an anthology of a genre of poetry." http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf I think this also gets at the earlier discussion of how entities "exist." Entities are only conventions that we use for whatever purposes we need. If we want a collective entity related to individual entities, then we will make one. But in the process of doing so (from my memory of a database course), it's good to avoid unnecessary duplication and redundancy, as this effects the efficiency of systems built out of the data model. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
