Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller <wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de>:
Predominant and non-predominant would need to be relationships
between the expression and the manifestation. It's not a
characteristic of the work or the expression.
This may be true for different ways of modeling aggregates. In my
model I'd have an aggregate work with two parts; I don't see why it
shouldn't be possible to give these parts of works attributes like
"main component of aggregate work" or "secondary component of
aggregate work" (I admit this would be a new attribute to FRBR,
something which could only be applied to aggregate works).
What type of entity would be "part" be? I'm thinking that there is no
such entity as "part" but that a work can be a "is part" of another
work. Taking into account that the work is a single entity that may be
related to any number of expression/manifestations it cannot be
"secondary" since that is what it is only in relation to the
manifestation being cataloged. Primary and secondary, therefore, have
to be relationships.
In a sense, a Work is always whole, even if it is part of another
work. If it didn't have "wholeness" it couldn't be a work.
Note that this would not affect the work "Introduction" as such, but
only in its role as part of the aggregate work. The supposedly
clever thing in my model (it may turn out not be that, of course) is
that the "Introduction" is wearing, so to speak, two hats at the
same time: One for its role as an individual work and one for its
role as a part of the aggregate work. If the introduction were to be
published independently later on, this would give you an ordinary
FRBR tree of a work (the introduction), an expression, and a
non-aggregate manifestation. In my diagram, this would mean another
arrow from the node E (W2) to a new manifestation which would only
embody this single expression.
Yes, that is how I imagine the graph to "grow." But I guess I'm not
sure what the "part" box is in your model -- it appears to be a Work
that has the characteristic of being a part of the aggregate. I also
note now that your Fig. 3 has an expression that realizes more than
one work, which I believe is problematic. It definitely violates the
current FRBR model, but then you are advocating for change in that
model.
Of course my model might turn out not be feasible at all. It's
certainly still at an experimental stage, and new aspects are bound
to come up. But up to now I haven't seen an argument in this thread
convincing me that I'm on a completely wrong track.
Would the "Work part" have the same properties as the work described
on its own?
W1
type: Work
editor: Jones, Jane
work title: Ecology collection
subject: trees
subject: streams
W2
type: Work
author: Smith, John
work title: Essay on trees
subject: trees
WP7
type: Work part
part of: W1
author: Smith, John
work title: Essay on trees
subject: trees
Is this what you were thinking of?
I'm not sure what you mean with "title search" here. Do you perhaps
mean a title search on manifestation level? That's not what I have
in mind. I rather imagine a system like OCLC's FictionFinder (by the
way: will that ever go online again?), which at the first step
presents not manifestations, but only works.
But I believe it searches on all titles. Otherwise, one would have to
know the original language title in order to retrieve the work.
Unfortunately Fiction Finder doesn't seem to be running at the moment
so I can't check that. The other option is that all manifestation
titles would need to be alternate titles in the work.
However, I don't think we can design for a single system structure.
Surely some systems will provide a full keyword access on any entities.
Sorry I can't follow your argument any better than this (which has
probably not been satisfactory). We must have got our wires crossed
somehow.
No, I actually think we're getting very close. It would be useful to
have examples, so if you can mock up examples of your ideas I think
that would help. Then we can refer to specifics. What I really want is
a real time white board for drawing diagrams... this kind of thing is
very hard to do in email. (And I greatly appreciate your excellent
command of English, as there would be no communication at all without
it.)
kc
In the end I think I am agreeing with you that we need a whole/part
relationship that connects the contents of manifestations to the
manifestation. The current whole/part relationships in FRBR may not
be sufficient, or it might be that we aren't clear about how they
work in RDA.
Yes, I think it's obvious that we can't do without a whole/part
relationship _somewhere_. The question of where is still open to
debate, I think. My proposal is to have it neither on manifestation
nor on expression level, but modeled as an aggregate work with
separate parts.
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
