This depends. If they are the same printing just with different covers
(paper, board, library, deluxe), we would consider them the same
manifestation (edition). Binding is not as definitive as a different
carier, e.g., cassette vs. DVD. You don't create a new manifestation by
sending a book to
I'm not sure the scenario effects how much distinguishing should be
made. I think the net result of either scenario should be dependent on
what works best for the community (from a cost-benefit analysis of work
needed to create records vs benefit to users). Under either scenario, I
think we be
I suspect that the addition of intellectual content in the form of music
to create Fast food nation the symphony would render it a new, though
related, work - W2
The realization of W2 by Orchestra X would be an expression
(contribution of performance aspects) - E1
The realization of W2 by
Karen said:
On the confusion for the patron issue, it would seem the confusion
comes from the limitations of our automated products, not the
distinction between paperbacks and hardcovers.
If the difficulty is with our ILS's, why are we redoing cataloguing
rules rather than redisigning our ILS's
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description
and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Myers, John F.
Sent: 7 aprilie 2008 17:49
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation
I suspect that the addition
===
This e-mail is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. No waiver of privilege, confidence or otherwise is
intended by
Karen Coyle wrote:
All expressions: the Work
Which is the only way you can define the work, IMO. It's a sum of the
expressions, not really something in itself, since it can't exist
without expression. The expressions would be the sum of the
manifestations... items add up to? so the top to
Jonathan talks about the question of meaning, which I think is one of
the key issues that we face in trying to formalize library cataloging
for machine processing.
The trick is figuring out how our overall systems
(and I don't just mean software, I mean the whole endeavor) is going to
work in an
In my post below I offered a development of a FRBR hierarchy that of
course is simplistic and hypothetical. This lovely world of ours
refuses however to be confined to the little boxes we create for it and
could offer the following scenarios:
Anachronistic issues aside, our symphony is
Greta de Groat summarized thusly:
To base cataloging rules on a model that hasn't been tested seems to me to be
... ok, i'm not going to use the terminology i'm actually thinking, but i'll
rephrase and say that it seems fundamentally flawed.
Not being bound by Greta's tact and collegiality,
The realization of Beethoven's 9th by Berlin Philharmonic directed by
Karajan would be an expression.
Ummm. From the bibliographic point of view, is an *event* any of the
FRBR concepts? The recording, not the performance; the exhibition
catalogue, not the exhibit; would be the
I agree with what Karen says.
There is of course a reason that only numbered pages are included in
the page count in our cataloging record---to do otherwise, would require
the cataloger to actually _count_ the pages, instead of just looking at
the last numbered page for a rough count. It was
Excellent point! I just ran across this kind of thing the other day. I
was nosing around in Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO) to
verify which edition (if I may be forgiven for outmoded terminology) of
a title we had, since ours was lacking the title page and the last
gathering. In
Greta de Groat wrote:
Karen Coyle wrote:
All expressions: the Work
Which is the only way you can define the work, IMO. It's a sum of the
expressions, not really something in itself, since it can't exist
without expression. The expressions would be the sum of the
manifestations... items add up
Karen Coyle wrote:
The only use of FRBR in cataloging, that I'm aware of, is in the VTLS
system, where you actually create the 4 Group I entities. I have seen
brief demos but haven't heard from anyone who has actually used it for
cataloging to see how well it works. Note, there's a ppt on the
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:03:33 -0700
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation
The realization of Beethoven's 9th by Berlin Philharmonic directed by
Karajan would be an expression.
Ummm.
Martha,
Hmm. Your pre-existing work is in the same MARC field as someone
else's author/title added entry. (700 with a $a/$t) Do others have a/t
entries that don't represent pre-existing works? What other
relationships are there? Is this the same as FRBR's Transformation?
(Is there any work being
-Original Message-
From: Karen Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:30:17 -0700
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Expression and Manifestation
If I go on like this I could convince myself that Work is such a vague
concept that it hardly serves us at all as a
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access /
Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan
Rochkind
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 3:09 PM
To: RDA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Expression and
Manifestation
See posting to Jonathan. We use author-title added entries, second indicator
blank, for other related works, and second indicator 2 for works contained,
as currently defined in MARC 21.
Lolita is represented by two film adaptations (two works), one in 1962 and
one in 1993. The 1962 work has four
Our data is clean in this respect; when the work is contained, we use second
indicator 2; in all other cases, the author-title entry is for a different
related work...
Martha
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:[EMAIL
An event is a Group 3 entity. But I suspect that the original poster is
using shorthand to refer to the sound recording of Karajan's direction
of the Berlin Philharmonic performing Beethoven's 9th.
In a full entity-relationship implementation it is possible (likely?)
that distinctions between
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
author-title added entry can be used for (at least) TWO different
functions:
1) A pre-existing work
2) An included work (analytic entry).
Can you define pre-existing -- because I've never heard the 7xx fields
referred to as that before. (OK, I did take cataloging a
By our, do you mean at your institution?
That is not generally what I've seen when looking at data in the wild
world. But maybe I was confused by the fact that technically, by
definition, blank indicator 2 means no information on nature of
relationship, rather than you can count on it being a
In trying to analyze the attributes of work and expression in FRBR i am
vastly puzzled. Language is given as an attribute of expression
(presumably because it may be translated so may vary between
expression--though it's helpful to know what is the original when that
can be determined).
Hi Jenn,
Yes, if a work is so abstract that it doesn't have attributes to
distinguish it from another work, then ... hmm, i'm not quite sure what
to think. That's the problem that the film community is having with
this. If mainstream RDA interpretation is that a film has no creators
and RDA
Karen said:
This is also an example of why the FRBR levels may not be the same in
all institutions.
Then how will institutions exchange records?
Mac
Jonathan said:
The thing used for both of these is called an author title added
entry. And put in the 700. That you can't tell whether a given
author-title added entry is which is a big problem.
Why a problem? Currently related works should have 700 2nd indicator
blank, and an included work
28 matches
Mail list logo
