I agree that Work and Expression is too fine a hair to split.
Mary L. Mastraccio Cataloging & Authorities Manager MARCIVE, Inc. San Antonio, TX 78265 1-800-531-7678 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:33 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe I think what he's saying is that a "bibFrame:Work" is just a container into which both "FRBR:Works" and "FRBR:Expressions" can be put. But, speaking for myself, I think the FRBR model would be a lot simpler to grasp, not to mention more applicable to non-monographic resources, if the "expression" level were jettisoned altogether. I don't see what the category of "Expressions" give us that couldn't be recorded and expressed through relationships among Works. --Ben Benjamin Abrahamse Cataloging Coordinator Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 12:57 PM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe I said: > As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations) >are Works in Bibframe. Thomas Meehan responded: >Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are >represented as Bibframe Works. Isn't that what I just said? __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________
