Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
-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: 02 October 2013 17:57 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? Yes, although I don't think the conclusion that The WEMI structure of RDA would be as irrelevant to Bibframe as it is to MARC follows since Bibframe as it currently stands and I understand it could distinguish between an RDA Work and Expression. Cheers, Tom
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Surely, the difference between an original and its translation is a
difference that is a useful to everyone, and the difference between formats
of presentation is clearly a useful difference also, but it doesn't seem to
me that they are the same kind of difference or, at least, not always so.
I'm not sure where the boundary line between performances/recordings
that are mere expressions of a work, and performances/recordings that are
so cooperative as to merit being new works lies. (I'm told that a film and
is screenplay are separate works.) Surely, different performances of a
jazz standard may be so different as to be unrecognizably the same work to
the un-initiated.
There are whole groups of things: (mythology, folk-tales, fairy tales,
plots of Shakespeare plays (many of which come out of his Holinshead
anyway)) that get constantly recycled and re-used and we don't consider
each re-use to be an expression of the original work.
I think the categories of Work and Expression are quite stable in
their central parts, but they start to lose coherence the further away one
gets from the prototypical examples. (That's the nature of categories, of
course.) For those of us who get to work with the good examples of a
particular category, they make perfectly good sense; for those of us who
are doing more fringey things, they don't necessarily work too well.
Personally, I think the category Expression is too amorphous to stick
around, so I'm delighted to see if absent from Bibframe, but I still want
to be able to group like things together (Works) and then sort them by the
attributes that are ascribed to Expressions. I just don't think their
relations to a work are similar enough to each to make Expression a useable
category.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.eduwrote:
I personally find the expression level extremely useful for distinguishing
between, e.g., different translations, different formats, etc. It's not a
relationship between works. A translation isn't a different work from the
original. A recording of a work isn't a different work from the text.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
-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 1:59 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Benjamin said:
I don't see what the category of Expressions give us that couldn't be
recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.
I agree. And RDA should be reshuffled in arrangement to reflect
Bibframe's W/I, even if we can't get ISBD arrangement.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
--
Adger Williams
Colgate University Library
315-228-7310
awilli...@colgate.edu
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
There is a handy diagram, Barbara Tillett's Family of Works that shows the categories for works and expressions, and where the cataloging conventions have put the boundary between new works and new expressions. For a working link, there is page 2 of http://www.frbr.org/files/denton-frbr-talk-handout.pdf The decision of the cut-off for new expression and new work has various dependencies. The main entry concept, reborn as the authorized access point for the work, is dependent on determining responsibility for the work. That identifier for the work remains the same for all expressions of that work. Subject relationships are typically defined at the work level. There has also been the idea of 'superworks' which draws in adaptations. I think such concepts can be handled on the fly by grouping works via the relationship designators. For example, a relevancy ranking in a search result could elevate adaptation of or even the whole category of derivative work relationships over other categories (even if those derivative works don't have the keyword used in the search). Displays of search results or within individual records could be co-ordinated around the categories of relationships (derivative, descriptive, whole-part, accompanying, sequential). Such an approach is dependent on underlying relationships being made and links established throughout, vertically from work to expression to manifestation to item, and horizontally at each of those levels. I see a lot of rich functionality at the manifestation-item relationship, where availability and location information at the item level can be embedded within the brief display at the manifestation level. It would be great if that consistent functionality could be extended into the other areas of the catalog data through rigorous relationship structures. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adger Williams [awilli...@colgate.edu] Sent: October-03-13 9:19 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe Surely, the difference between an original and its translation is a difference that is a useful to everyone, and the difference between formats of presentation is clearly a useful difference also, but it doesn't seem to me that they are the same kind of difference or, at least, not always so. I'm not sure where the boundary line between performances/recordings that are mere expressions of a work, and performances/recordings that are so cooperative as to merit being new works lies. (I'm told that a film and is screenplay are separate works.) Surely, different performances of a jazz standard may be so different as to be unrecognizably the same work to the un-initiated. There are whole groups of things: (mythology, folk-tales, fairy tales, plots of Shakespeare plays (many of which come out of his Holinshead anyway)) that get constantly recycled and re-used and we don't consider each re-use to be an expression of the original work. I think the categories of Work and Expression are quite stable in their central parts, but they start to lose coherence the further away one gets from the prototypical examples. (That's the nature of categories, of course.) For those of us who get to work with the good examples of a particular category, they make perfectly good sense; for those of us who are doing more fringey things, they don't necessarily work too well. Personally, I think the category Expression is too amorphous to stick around, so I'm delighted to see if absent from Bibframe, but I still want to be able to group like things together (Works) and then sort them by the attributes that are ascribed to Expressions. I just don't think their relations to a work are similar enough to each to make Expression a useable category. On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Maxwell robert_maxw...@byu.edumailto:robert_maxw...@byu.edu wrote: I personally find the expression level extremely useful for distinguishing between, e.g., different translations, different formats, etc. It's not a relationship between works. A translation isn't a different work from the original. A recording of a work isn't a different work from the text. Bob Robert L. Maxwell Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger 6728 Harold B. Lee Library Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 (801)422-5568tel:%28801%29422-5568 We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 1:59 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CAmailto:RDA-L
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
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/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Am 02.10.2013 01:55, schrieb J. McRee Elrod: ISBD is the most successful international library standard ever, and a major component of the hoped for UBC. It is sad to see it sidetracked. We don't know if the last word on that has been spoken yet. Right now, lacking any proof-of-concept and reality check on large-scale levels, as well as assessments of affordability and technical viability we just have to wait and see. About linked data, all we have now is assumptions). OTOH, input systems with promptings in ISBD order as well as ISBD displays, should not be outside the scope of the doable even with RDA. The rules themselves are silent about display as well as indexing! The latter, as it is about the A aspect, is more troubling than the former. Convincing reasons should nonetheless be given for any new concepts. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
J. McRee (Mac) Elrod said:
As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations) are Works
in Bibframe. The WEMI structure of RDA would be as irrelevant to Bibframe
as it is to MARC.
Not so. As I understand it, both RDA Works and RDA Expressions are represented
as Bibframe Works. This is not to say that they are to be collapsed as such.
You will no doubt have noticed that the draft(!) Bibframe Work
(http://bibframe.org/vocab/Work.html) includes both expressionOf and
hasExpression properties so that, for example:
Shakespeare's Hamlet (Bibframe Work representing an RDA Work)
- hasExpression: 1945 French edition of Hamlet
1945 French edition of Hamlet (Bibframe Work representing an RDA Expression)
- expressionOf: Shakespeare's Hamlet
I don't think you could do that so explicitly in MARC. I'll admit it might have
been preferable had they chosen a different name for it than Work to avoid
confusion. Bibframe is I understand designed to accommodate other kinds of
bibliographic data, some that use FRBR (like RDA) and some that don't (like
AACR2).
Cheers,
Tom
Mark said:
Presumably the RDA profile will incorporate the WEMI entities and all
the other whiz-bang components of that standard.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
\__
---
Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk
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/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Benjamin A Abrahamse babra...@mit.edu wrote: 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 have to say that I highly doubt if FRBR is more applicable than BF to non-monographic resources, given the fact that FRBR is still not very applicable to archive and music, if not more communities. (I am sorry that I didn't look for the source. But I remember Ms. Sally McCallum talked about that in a forum in ALA 2013.) And I would guess that a two-layered structure will be more easily to be implemented than a four-layered one anyway. I totally agree with you that Expression is definitely the pain here. But after getting rid of it, I would argue that there are really not a lot of differences between FRBR and BF. Kai -- Kai Li | 李恺 MLIS student School of Information Studies, Syracuse University 343 Hinds Hall, Syracuse, New York 13244-4100 My Personal Page: http://kaili.us Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kai.lee.nalsi Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Nalsi 博客: http://nalsi.net/ 微博: http://weibo.com/nalsi
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Benjamin said:
I don't see what the category of Expressions give us that couldn't
be recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.
I agree. And RDA should be reshuffled in arrangement to reflect
Bibframe's W/I, even if we can't get ISBD arrangement.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
I personally find the expression level extremely useful for distinguishing
between, e.g., different translations, different formats, etc. It's not a
relationship between works. A translation isn't a different work from the
original. A recording of a work isn't a different work from the text.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to
the course which has been heretofore pursued--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
-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 1:59 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Benjamin said:
I don't see what the category of Expressions give us that couldn't be
recorded and expressed through relationships among Works.
I agree. And RDA should be reshuffled in arrangement to reflect Bibframe's
W/I, even if we can't get ISBD arrangement.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] WEMI and Bibframe
Mark said:
Presumably the RDA profile will incorporate the WEMI entities and all
the other whiz-bang components of that standard.
As I understand it, what are Expressions in RDA (e.g. translations)
are Works in Bibframe. The WEMI structure of RDA would be as
irrelevant to Bibframe as it is to MARC.
Perhaps younger folk have no problem with the RDA arrangement, but I
find it difficult. I like to be prompted for data in ISBD element
order, and have rules in that order.
ISBD is the most successful international library standard ever, and a
major component of the hoped for UBC. It is sad to see it
sidetracked.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
