05.01.2012 23:06, Karen Coyle:
this is a really devilish problem, but I think the solution is not going
to be found within FRBR. That is because FRBR creates a tight coupling
between W, E, and M that (IMO) does not fit the reality of publishing.
Exactly. The Bibliographic Universe does not follow FRBR as its
blueprint but FRBR tries to draw a model of the universe that fits a
number of observable characteristics considered important. As any
model, it has blind spots, there are matters outside its scope.
There's a parallel here:
The real Universe does not follow the particle physicists' Standard
Model of Elementary Particles which may still turn out as fundamentally
flawed. Depending not only on whether or not the Higgs particle will be
found but also on what the true nature of Dark Matter will turn out to
be. The amount of which being a lot larger than the visible matter as
we know it. Will the model be able to describe it or not?
Are aggregates our dark matter, not covered by FRBR?
> Then, if our assumption is that users are interested in the
> individual Works as well as, or instead of, the aggregate, then
> another entry has to be made for each individual Work as well. I
> don't think that's how most of us envision FRBR.
What else should we assume end users to be interested in if not the
individual works? Are those works or not, or are they some sort of
second class works? Or dark matter? For users of AACR2 based catalogs,
they mostly are.
So, the big issue is an old one: AACR based cataloging considers the
whole, and that includes aggregates but not their constituent parts, as
the thing to catalog whereas in our cataloging culture we have focused
more on the parts. This issue is yet unresolved. First, thus, we need to
reach an agreement about the nature of dark matter in our universe.
B.Eversberg
