Hal Cain:
"This suggests to me that we still haven't defined adequately what awork really
is. Since that's one of the cardinal concepts underlyingFRBR and informing RDA,
that's a worry! "Or maybe, bibliographically, near enough is good enough? But
not, Isuspect, for those who look at RDA as a set of definitions forelements
designed to be apt for information processing?"
IMHO, the definition of Work in the FRBR/RDA context is purposefully vague,
inasmuch as individual knowledge/use domains (of which libraries are but one,
albeit the primary one) can refine the definition for their own uses. For
instance, in music, it is beneficial to define the work as possessing those
attributes which (usually) carry from one expression to the next (medium of
performance, key, form, etc.). Ideally, the cataloger then would not need to
re-input this metadata each time a manifestation embodying this work is
encountered. In other domains, such as art, moving images, etc. the definition
necessarily needs to be flexible enough to accomodate the functional
requirements, as outlined in FRBR, which may be peculiar to that domain.
Put another way, the Work as defined in FRBR (still IMHO) is meant to be the
"lowest common denominator" of all known expressions/manifestations embodying
it (or about it, etc.). Its conceptual definition is somewhat vague, but the
functional definition is somewhat mutable.
Some yuletide musings from California,
Casey M.____________________Casey Alan Mullin(Future) Discovery Metadata
LibrarianMetadata Development UnitStanford University
Librarieshttp://www.caseymullin.com > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:06:45 -0500>
From: [email protected]> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR, RDA ... and transcendental
idealism> To: [email protected]> > Why does it make sense to call a
building a 'work'? Let alone one that> was never constructed. It's a
subject/topic that other things can be> 'about', certainly. But I don't see why
it's useful to consider it a> 'work'.> > But yes, in general, no model of the
world is going to _exactly_ capture> the world. And modelling the world is what
we are doing when we make> bibliographic records, whether we realize it or not.
So in general, good> enough is definitely good enough. The trick is figuring
out how good is> good enough.> > But I'm not following why it makes sense to
consider a building, let> alone a building that never actually existed, to be a
'work' in our> modelling. Maybe I'd consider blueprints to be a 'work', but
the> building itself? It's not possibly going to be in a library collection,>
so why worry about it? But no matter what, we'll be able to think of> all kinds
of strange 'edge' cases that don't fit well in our model. In> any model. Good
enough is good enough, just a question of how good is> good enough.> >
Jonathan> > Hal Cain wrote:> > 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.> > -->
Jonathan Rochkind> Digital Services Software Engineer> The Sheridan Libraries>
Johns Hopkins University> 410.516.8886> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
