At 03:24 PM 3/5/2010, Karen Coyle wrote:
Would this be a work record by the FRBR model? (I know that Barbara
Tillett was talking about using authority records to implement FRBR,
but I don't know how far the thinking about that was developed.)
I believe that the point is that we have always made authority
records representing works, either authority records with 130 fields
for "anonymous classics" such as Chanson de Roland or with 100 $a/$t
for works such as Shakespeare's Macbeth. These authority records
already exist and have existed for years; nothing new is needed to
support this way of representing works in bibliographic systems.
On the other hand, as we move away from our current concepts of
bibliographic and authority records, towards more flexible concepts
of aggregations of elements or statements, we might choose to
aggregate for each of the work/expression/manifestation/item entities
and treat each of these aggregations as more or less the same thing
-- neither bibliographic nor authority records but something else entirely.
John Attig
Penn State University
[email protected]
