In conventional cataloging practice, and in what is suggested by
FRBR/RDA as I understand it... no, it doesn't really matter. A movie
version is a different work.
I think an argument could be made that a _very simple_ movie version,
that is really just video of a bunch of actors sitting around a table
doing a reading of the _exact_ text of the novel --- should be treated
as the same work to be consistent -- If an audio-book of the exact text
is considered the same work -- is it?
But I'm not sure about that, and I think that, otherwise, no,
conventional practice is to consider the movie version a different work.
Conventional practice, as represented by legacy cataloging and
FRBR/RDA's suggestions is NOT to have catalogers considering how much
the movie differs from the book, and figuring out exactly how much is
"too much". [Consider again, in AACR2 -- is the main entry (not an
added entry) on a film version of Pride and Prejudice _ever_ Jane
Austen? If it sometimes is, that might be a case where it is indeed
being modelled as the same work. I don't think this is ever done? But
I'm not a cataloger.]
It's not an unreasonable thing to suggest, but it's not conventional
practice. My main point is that it's not about which choice is closer
to "reality" of whether two things are the same work or not. There kind
of isn't a "reality" of that, there isn't an actual "work" we can go
touch and open up and see. It's just about our modelling choices, and
in order to share our data we need to do this somewhat consistently.
It's totally fine to think it would be _better_ (more useful) if the
convention were different -- just like you could disagree with what,
say, AACR2 or other legacy cataloging practice dictated about when to
use the same title authority record and when to make a different one.
But if you want to be able to share your authority records and linked
bibs cooperatively, you've got to try to make choices consistent with
everyone else, even if you think a different choice would be more useful.
On 4/7/2011 4:55 PM, Mark Rose wrote:
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
