Jim, I think you're over-thinking it. Confronted with a new book,
don't we examine it and check our favorite database(s) to verify
whether it's a new work or a version of an existing work? If new, we
just treat it at the manifestation level. Under the
currently-anticipated regime for implementing RDA (until we are
engaged in a different scenario, for which systems and services don't
yet exist on any significant global scale) we'll do the same. Having
accounted for the manifestation and its content, then it's done. And
if it's a version, we identify of what, and in what kind of
relationship and what features and agents (editors, translators,
illustrators, and so on) distinguish it as an expression.
Granted the reality will sometimes be complex; but for many instances
it's just an extension of what we're already doing -- with the
advantage for the future that when the same work occurs, and/or the
same distinguishing features and relationships, we can reuse that
work; when there are sytems to enable us to do it without copying and
editing from a previous bibliographic record, as we do now.
Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
hec...@dml.vic.edu.au
Quoting Weinheimer Jim <j.weinhei...@aur.edu>:
Dan Matei wrote:
<snip>
I'm afraid we tend to dramatise the edge cases.
87.34% of the users will perfectly understand when you state that an
article is about "Hamlet", the
play or when you state that Mahler composed "Das Klagende Lied" or
when you state that (say) The
Falkner Estate owns the copyright on "Absalom, Absalom !".
So, the (abstract) idea of a work is quite common. And, as John
Myers just reminded us, you
(catalogers) used it extensively in the uniform titles. "For ages", he said.
</snip>
I shall reply that applying this kind of abstract reasoning is one
thing, but I am thinking of the cataloger who is sitting at the
desk, perhaps alone, and *has to make the decisions* what is the
work, expression and so on. Doing these things in practice will be
something completely different from thinking about it abstractly,
just as it was (and still is) in the determination of deciding which
subject heading to use: Russia, Soviet Union, Former Soviet
republics (if not all of them!). And in the back of the cataloger's
mind is the certainty that any mistake will be pounced on!
In the proposed FRBR universe, a mess-up on a work or expression
will obviously have consequences, and I suspect that in such a
linked system, the consequences could be far greater than mistakes
today. While in theory, an edit to a work record should
automatically be replicated in all related expressions and
manifestations, a completely wrong work record will have unforeseen
consequences since all expressions and manifestations will be built
on the information in the work record. If anything, it seems that
consistency will be more important in the FRBR linked-data universe
than it is today.
The only consolation is that for now RDA still uses the same
methods, as Bernhard mentions, and we will keep on making
manifestation records.
James L. Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
