Weinheimer Jim wrote:
Of course, all these things can be debated, but I still maintain that
the WEMI model is outdated. Forcing everything into that model does
not seem warranted. If it were simply a matter of an intellectual
exercise, it wouldn't bother me, but this has consequences for the
entire field of librarianship, especially now.
Jim Weinheimer
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. So "expresses" "Manifests" rather than "an expression" "a
manifestation". Then one could expand the set of relationships, if that
was needed, and the relationships could be made between any set of
elements, rather than fixed structures. As a vague example (because this
is still a vague notion in my head) you could describe the physical
properties of a sculpture and say that "manifests" a work with a title
and artist. This is assuming that you don't feel that you need
"expression" for non-textual works. Or if you have a video that has a
band playing three different songs, you can associate that manifestation
with more than one work.
The upside of this approach is that it allows you to model a more
complex bibliographic universe. The down side is that you will be
presenting users with that complexity, and the interface needs to make
it understandable.
kc
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kco...@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
