But not all the works we consider are text/language, or musical.
There are also works of art: paintings, sculptures, buildings, and
more. And these too may no longer exist; indeed, especially for
things such as buildings, may never have been constructed -- yet the
drawings etc. may exist; and when we talk about a
projected-but-never-constructed building, bridge, railway it would be
seldom, if ever, that we're talking about the drawings as such, rather
we're talking about the entity designed but never fixed in a concrete
(pun unintentional!) structure.
This suggests to me that we still haven't defined adequately what a
work really is. Since that's one of the cardinal concepts underlying
FRBR and informing RDA, that's a worry!
Or maybe, bibliographically, near enough is good enough? But not, I
suspect, for those who look at RDA as a set of definitions for
elements designed to be apt for information processing?
I rather think that creating tight definitions while we're short of
agreement about what we're talking about is an unproductive activity.
At this point I'm very aware that I've swum far out of my depth, and
will retreat again to lurk on the banks while the stream of discussion
swirls onward.
Hal Cain
Dalton McCaughey Library
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
[email protected]
Marjorie Bloss wrote:
Or another possibility of a work is if I ask you "Have you read
Voltaire's /Candide/?" My question doesn't really ask if you've
read it in French, English, German, etc. or even more specifically,
one particular translator's translation of it. I simply want to
know if you have read it. In this case, the two things and one
implication that would hold true for the work: there's a specific
author, there's a specific title, and the implication (reading) as
to how you became familiar with the content. Which of course, could
take place in print, online, or (heaven help us) in microfiche, etc.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Greta de Groat <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Monday, December 22, 2008 11:53 AM
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA ... and transcendental idealism
I don't have FRBRoo in front of me right now, but i remember that it
had some sort of category for what i would dub a "thought work",
that is, the point at which a work is conceived but not yet
manifested in any real world way. THough i think as a theoretical
entity it belongs in the scheme, i have a hard time imagining its
practical value, at least in bibliographical terms.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
