J. McRee Elrod wrote:
In article 49f31a67.6050...@kcoyle.net, you wrote:
One way around the WEMI straight-jacket that I've been exploring is to
use the relationships inherent in that rather than seeing it as a
structure.
It's nice to see that someone has at least recognized that WEMI is
In article 49f31a67.6050...@kcoyle.net, you wrote:
One way around the WEMI straight-jacket that I've been exploring is to
use the relationships inherent in that rather than seeing it as a
structure.
It's nice to see that someone has at least recognized that WEMI is
more of a straight-jacket
Dan Matei wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements,
either way
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
But I think this misses the point: does WEMI define the universe of
information, *and* define what people want when they search
information? From my understanding of FRBR/RDA, everything must be
boiled down to WEMI.
It's the classical
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
But I think this misses the point: does WEMI define the universe of
information, *and* define what people want when they search information? From
my understanding of FRBR/RDA, everything must be boiled down to WEMI.
I do not agree with this understanding. WEMI
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
But everything is NOT boiled down to WEMI. Many other relationships
between WEMI entities are possible. The FRBR report itself says this,
although does not definitively describe a vocabularly of possible
relationships, leaving that to a later date and/or to
In article 2mp8jfj3be8t09...@slc.bc.ca, I wrote:
BTW the term for super-work is urberwerk (which can also mean an
organ swell, and is a popular binocular).
Sorry. the organ swell is oberwerk.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on
behalf of Weinheimer Jim
Perhaps I am completely off base, but I do not believe I am talking about
relationships here, I am talking about some new types of entities that do not
seem to fit the WEMI theoretical
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
But I think this misses the point: does WEMI define the universe of
information, *and* define what people want when they search information?
From my understanding of FRBR/RDA, everything must be boiled down to WEMI.
It's the classical mental image for the structure of
Excuse my ignorance, but why are the film and the novel two different
works? Are they not different expressions of the same work, that is,
is the film not an adaptation of the novel? And if they are separate
works, why do they need to be linked to each other?
I'm still a novice in FRBR and don't
It's kind of arbitrary whether they are considered the same work or
different work. But the library community has decided to consider them
different works, for a bunch of reasons that are probably documented
somewhere or other
So if they're different works, why do they need to be linked?
Here is the relevant section from FRBR (3.2.1):
Thus paraphrases, rewritings, adaptations for children, parodies,
musical variations on a theme and free transcriptions of a musical
composition are considered to represent new works. Similarly,
adaptations of a work from one literary or art form to
Jonathan Leybovich wrote:
The link between the film work and novel work is intended to capture
an important relationship between the two distinct works that is
important to users. Given that there are so many fundamental
inter-work relationships, I've always thought it would make sense to
Mac's response here is right on! If the film Gone with the wind and the
novel were both the same work, they would be named the same way. Few
people would name the film as a being created by Mitchell (or, in AACR2
terms, the novel gets Mitchell as main entry, but the film does not).
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
On the other hand, while the film being a different work than the book makes
sense to me, the idea that an _audio book_ of the exact text of the book is a
different work (but a braille version is not? Or is a braille version a
different work too?)
Isn't saying that if the main entry changes, it's a different work
looking at it backwards? We choose a different main entry because we
(in the library community) have agreed (by custom) that a film is a
different work from the book it was based on. That why we have rules
like AACR2 21.9. FRBR
. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
On the other hand, while the film being a different work than the book makes
sense to me, the idea that an _audio book_
Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:39 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
On the other
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements,
either way.
I would prefer to call
:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements,
either way.
I would prefer to call them cultural conventions. IMHO, they are not completely arbitrary: they are based on the
evaluation of the amount of added
In article 387791fc3f8c1b4e98bf58481496c6f20281f...@hlsexch3.law.harvard.edu,
you wrote:
Isn't saying that if the main entry changes, it's a different work
looking at it backwards? We choose a different main entry because we
(in the library community) have agreed (by custom) that a film is a
Dan Matei wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:31:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
Yes, it's an arbitrary judgement. They are ALL arbitrary judgements,
either way.
I would
When RDA, to embody Works - expressions - manifestations - items (aka
WEMI) - was first being bruited, frequent mention was made of Gone
With the Wind.
The novel and motion picture are two different works, not two
manifestations of the same work. In the brave new bibliographic
universe of WEMI,
The link between the novel and the film is best done just once - in the
two work records for the novel and the film that RDA is leading us to in
some hopefully not too distant future - rather than in every bibliographic
record for each manifestation. We could do this in authority records too,
24 matches
Mail list logo
