Wouldn't the determining factor of whether a movie version of "Pride and 
Prejudice" shared the same work as the novelization depend on the the intent of 
the expression as a motion picture of the novel or as a retelling? If the movie 
took enough liberties with the text, it might be a different work, but if it 
were an almost verbatim representation of the novel then it might be the same 
work. Another example might be whether the film "Prospero's Books" share the 
same work as the RSC film production of "The Tempest"? The text is very similar 
in each version.

What about remakes then? For example, do the original film version of Arthur 
and the 2011 remake of the film Arthur share the work "Arthur" or because there 
is substantial deviation in text do we view it as a separate work. 

The whole notion of Work in FRBR seems unnecessary in my view. We don't deal in 
Platonic ideals of what a work is but in actual productions, the physicality of 
the work, i.e. expression down to item.

Mark Rose, B.A.Hons., M.I.St.
Librarian and Information Systems Manager
ICURR = Cirur
mr...@icurr.org
(647) 345-7004



-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on 
behalf of Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Thu 4/7/2011 4:35 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
 
The 'conventional' modelling choice right now is to call the film version of 
Pride and Prejudice a different (creative) 'work' than the novel, and the film 
script yet different again. 

This is a somewhat arbitrary choice -- when modelling reality, we have to make 
choices on how to 'summarize' reality in our modelled data, in the most useful 
ways for our use cases. It is my opinion that neither choice is neccesarily 
more 'right', any model is neccesarily a summarized 'lossy encoding' of 
reality.  

In this case, that choice is arguably most consistent with legacy cataloging 
practice, where a film version gets a different authority record than the 
original novel -- and perhaps more importantly, gets a different 'main entry'.  
Things that are the same 'work' in legacy cataloging practice are going to have 
the same main entry, if they have different main entries, that means legacy 
cataloging practice treated them as different works. Sort of, it's ambiguous, 
part of the point of FRBR/RDA is to make it less ambiguous and more consistent, 
but (for better or for worse), follow the lead of our inherited legacy 
practice. 

So, anyway, the modelling choices say that a novel and a film based on it 
belong to different 'work' sets -- but they can certainly still be related by 
OTHER relationships, such as a work-to-work relationship "is based upon". 

Jonathan

On 4/7/2011 4:15 PM, Aleta Copeland wrote: 

        < Here's a nice visual representation of the 
Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter 
this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html
        > 

          

        Shouldn't all the expression just be under one Work, since the Work is 
the insubstantial idea that then is created as an expression?  For example, I 
would definitely want all versions of say Pride and Prejudice listed as the 
same work, then have all the expressions of it listed below that, with the 
manifestations listed for each expression. 

          

        ************************************** 

        ************************************** 

        Aleta Copeland, MLS 

        Head of Technical Services 

        Ouachita Parish Public Library 

        1800 Stubbs Ave. 

        Monroe, LA 71201 

        318-327-1490 ex. 3015 

          

        From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of runjuliet
        Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:37 AM
        To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
        Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR 

          

        Here's a nice visual representation of the 
Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter 
this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html
        
        Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, 
and screenplay together... 

          

        Amanda Raab 

        Catalog and Metadata Librarian 

        Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives 

        2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115 

        phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964 

        ar...@rockhall.org <mailto:ar...@rockhall.org>  | 
www.rockhall.com/library <http://www.rockhall.com/library>  

          

          

        
        

          

        On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh <jpeck...@yahoo.com> 
wrote: 

                I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand 
FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains 
what FRBR is in a simple English? 

        I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your 
help so much. 

          

        Thanks,
        
        Jeff Peckosh
        Public Library Cataloging Librarian 

                

          

Reply via email to