I vaguely recall all SORTS of similar discussions we've had over the
past 4+ years, heh.
I agree with you that a "SuperWork" entity is not neccesary -- I think
it maybe would even create more confusion and problems than it solved.
Model it as a work-to-work relationship instead, that's fine.
One of the main reasons -- for better OR for worse -- that FRBR models
as W E M I, is an attempt to formally model what catalogers had been
doing -- without explicitly formalizing it -- for 100+ years already.
That didn't involve a 'superwork' entity either.
On 4/7/2011 5:16 PM, Dan Matei wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Rochkind<rochk...@jhu.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:35:09 -0400
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".
Maybe you recall the discussion we had here, 2 years ago...
<quote>
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Leybovich<jley...@gmail.com>
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:53:54 -0700
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Utility of FRBR/WEMI/RDA
inter-work relationships, I've always thought it would make sense to
introduce a new "Super-Work" entity that would serve to group one work
and all its realizations (e.g. all literary, cinematic, musical, and
graphic works largely inspired by the Dickens short story work, "A
Christmas Carol").
Jonathan
A couple of years ago, Patrick LeBoeuf (BnF) proposed such a "superwork". I do
not think is necesary.
These superworks are either seminal works (e.g. "Romeo and Juliet" - film,
ballet, etc.) or iconographic themes (e.g. "Christ in Majesty" - many, many
works of art).
Dan
</quote>
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Matei, director
Institutul de Memorie Culturală - CIMEC
Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90
013701 București [Bucharest], Romania, www.cimec.ro
tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64
www.cimec.ro
