All: I keep hearing a couple of threads in this conversation that I think need further examination. The first is that there needs to be 'agreement' on how to handle these situations, before anyone can do anything. This implies that we need to retain the notion that it's critically important that we minimize the impact of those who stray from the 'true path' because they make our jobs harder. I really think this idea needs to hit the dumpster now, if not yesterday. If we're entering a world where the FRBR model is used to help us link together information at a number of levels of description, it seems to me that we all benefit from those who add important detail to the shared environment. That old straightjacket 'granularity consensus' is one of the things that marginalize us in the world where the old boundaries around what we do and don't do gets in our way.
I should also point out that the DCMI/RDA Task Group built a number of cataloger scenarios, including one that included a festschrift ( http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/Cataloger_Scenarios#Scenario_2:_A_collected_work). The TG name has been changed to the DCMI Bibliographic Metadata Task Group, but the wiki data from the old group has been moved (is in the process of being moved anyway, but the Cataloger Scenarios are all moved). I'd be happy to entertain discussion on whether or not this scenario makes sense (leaving aside the question of whether anyone will do it), but suggest that maybe a new subject line would make sense. As for a use case for this, I was thinking about the VIVO project ( http://vivo.cornell.edu), which is building information about researchers and their work, based primarily on needs at the institution level. I know they've been gathering citations of researcher's 'product' to be able to associate them with the relevant researchers, and this effort includes things like articles, books, and book chapters. Two of those categories are not things we've traditionally considered as within our attention, but why not? If this project is gathering information from library catalogs and other sources and aggregating them with the 'authors', why are we not looking to this information as grist for our mill as well? In addition to the data, as I recall the projects were using some very innovative methods to gather the information they needed. I wrote a blog post about one of those methods a few years ago: http://managemetadata.org/blog/2009/03/23/making-connections/. I guess to me the question of whether FRBR is the be-all and end-all of models, whether it requires tweaking, extension or whatever, ultimately can't be determined unless we look beyond our current practices and start trying things out. I think that the 'cataloger scenarios' are a nice tool for thinking about those issues, because they force us to think through the whole process for a specific kind of item, which helps to surface the issues more usefully than a more abstract discussion might. Diane 2012/1/6 Heidrun Wiesenmüller <wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> > Karen, > > > If each aggregate Manifestation is linked to an aggregate Expression, and >> each aggregate Expression to an aggregate Work.... well, then we have a >> one-to-one between Manifestations, Expressions and Works. We're back to >> ISBD or MARC in that case. >> > > I'm not sure whether that description fits my model, where there is no > expression level for the aggregating work. > > By the way, especially as a non-native speaker, I find it really dificult > to distinguish between "aggregate" and "aggregating" as the Working Group > does; they use the first one only on manifestation level). Probably I > should use the term "aggregate work" instead of "aggregating work" for the > alternative model, because I've got something different in mind as they > have. My idea probably is much closer to the view of e.g. a collection as a > "work-of-works" (I think they also called it "mosaic work"), which the > Working Group seems to have rejected. > > > >> 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. >> > > My view may be influenced by the German data model. For example, for a > monographic series which is deemed important enough (the rule is, > basically, to do it for numbered series) the series itself gets a > bibliographic record, and the individual parts are linked to this via its > control number. In this system it's quite natural that one can either start > on the series level (where you get all the information about the series > itself, and of course, a link to the individual parts) or with one of the > individual works (with a link to the series). It is possible to use the > same technique for e.g. essays in a collection, but of course this is a > matter of time and effort. So mostly, in the case of articels we make use > of a scan of the TOC instead. But in a really FRBRized environment I would > expect records (or information packages built on-the-fly or whatever we > will have then) for individual works and aggregate works, connected in a > meaningful way. > > Heidrun > > > -- > --------------------- > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. > Stuttgart Media University > Faculty of Information and Communication > Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany > www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi >
