Yes and no. On the one hand, music catalogers have been much more diligent about using uniform titles for works. On the other hand, in terms of recorded performances, all of what they deal with could be considered expressions. As expressions, their access points are not differentiated, e.g., by performer, when multiple works appear together in a recording, and the association between an individual performer and a particular expression often requires human interpretation.
What's needed is a tiered or multi-record structure. We could embed lots of micro-records in a record for a recording in order to associate the significant entities and attributes with each of the objects it contains (imagine a record for a recording, only much longer and more redundant with other records). We could divide the work among multiple records, putting one set of data on a FRBR work record, another on an expression record, and linking both of those directly or indirectly to a manifestation record for a compilation. But we still haven't figured out how we'll build such records or such links. The discussion at Midwinter MARBI about enabling a label for work and expression records without real consideration of how to encode their contents was indicative of how far we have to go on this. Stephen On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Quoting Weinheimer Jim <j.weinhei...@aur.edu>: > > >> But I wonder if what you point out is a genuine problem, especially in an >> RDA/FRBR universe. The user tasks are to find, identify, yadda --> works, >> expressions, manifestations, and *items*. Not sub-items. > > > Jim, I think you're at the wrong end of the WEMI continuum -- what this > record lacks is better access to *Works* contained in the > manifestation/item. Items are the physical items, the thing you have in > hand. The added entries in this record represent persons and works. > > The fact that music cataloging has used constructed titles for all works > (Quartets, strings, no. 1) puts them way ahead of other cataloging > communities, in particular book cataloging. In music, you almost always have > a Work-level representation for every work in the manifestation. In book > cataloging we not only lack controlled names for most works (e.g. no uniform > titles), but there is less emphasis on adding an entry for every work in the > manifestation. (And there's great confusion as to what multiple works mean > for expressions.) > > It's fairly common to find a book record that *should* have a uniform title > but does not. > > http://lccn.loc.gov/46003912 (and to be clear, LC is relatively diligent > about UTs compared to many other libraries) > > In addition, it seems to be unclear whether the titles in added entries in > book records for other books consist of uniform titles, or what to do in > cases when the library has decided not to display or shelve books under > uniform titles that its users may not recognize (Voina i Mir). You cannot > assume that the lack of 240 means that the 245 $a$b entry is *also* the UT, > and you cannot assume that a 7xx$t has been created in proper UT form. > > I think that defining, grasping, and coding of Work titles (as they are > called in FRBR and RDA) is going to be a huge challenge... but mainly in > those areas where we haven't done a good job of this in the past. I'm > beginning to think that music cataloging could lead the way because there is > greater clarity about multiple works in a manifestation than we have in book > cataloging. I'd be interested to hear if there are other cataloging > "subsets" that have handled this well -- law? maps? serials? > > kc > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet > -- Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota 160 Wilson Library 309 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-625-2328 Fx: 612-625-3428
