John Attig schrieb:
If FRBR in fact models the item as associated with only one
manifestation, then this is an obvious oversimplification -- as many
have discovered when they learned that their systems have been designed
on this same premise and therefore are not capable of dealing with
bound-with/issued-with/filmed-with/etc. resources.
It strikes me that it might be useful to construct modeling built around
the item, which is after all what we all have in hand when we catalog
and what we have in our collections. In order to support discovery (as
opposed to the inventory and other item-based functions), the item needs
to be linked to the manifestation, expression, and work. In a typical
case (at least one in which there are multiple expressions and works),
the items are the base of a pyramid, with a single work at the apex. In
other cases (the ---- with cases), the item is at the apex of the
pyramid and the works at the base. In other cases (compilations,
augmentations, etc.), the geometry can get rather complex.
If, in current practice, a multipart is described in just one record
with a long 505 for the parts, then what is the "item"? Specifically,
if the parts have their own titles and can be cited and looked upon
as manifestations of a work. Take "Lord of the Rings" and "Shakespeare's
Plays".
Something better than the one-record approach with a 505 is long overdue.
B.Eversberg
