Here are some more issues with the model of the Working Group, now
centering on the concept of an "aggregating expression". The more I
think about this, the less I understand what this entity is supposed to
be in the first place, and what might be the point of having it at all.
In the main body of the Final Report, the aggregating work is defined as
something which happens when expressions are aggregated: "In the
process of creating the aggregate manifestation, the aggregator produces
an aggregating work. This type of work has also been referred to as the
glue, binding, or the mortar that transforms a set of
individual expressions into an aggregation." (p. 5). I've already
pointed out that the aggregating work has really nothing to due with the
individual works in a collection. It is something much more abstract,
which I find difficult to put: Perhaps the idea of aggregating certain
things. But at least, an aggregating work can have some of the
attributes which ordinary works have: certainly a title, a date, and the
"intended termination"; probably also things like intended audience and
context for the work. I'm not so sure about form of the work (the
examples in FRBR are "novel, play, poem, essay" a.s.o., which do not fit
here; but perhaps one could have "collection" as a form of work). The
aggregating work also has, of course, a relationship to its creator. So
there is some information connected with this entity which can be worth
recording.
But now let's look at the aggregating expression. The Report does (as so
often) not say much about it, only this: "Although every aggregate
manifestation also embodies an aggregating expression of the aggregating
work, these aggregating expressions may, or may not, be considered
significant enough to warrant distinct bibliographic identification."
(p. 5).
Now looking through the list of attributes for an expression, I wonder
which of them could be applied to an aggregating expression at all:
Certainly not form and language, which in other cases are probably the
most important attributes of expressions. But even if all expressions in
the aggregate manifestation were, e.g., in French, this doesn't mean
that the aggregating expression itself is French as well. Remember that
the aggregating expression does have no connection at all to the
expressions of the individual works (apart from the fact that it is
embodied together with them in the aggregate manifestation). So an
aggregating expression could not be used for e.g. distinguishing between
different language versions.
I also think that it would be impossible to apply the FRBR attributes
extensibility, revisability and extent as they all have something to do
with the intellectual content. I wonder what the intellectual content of
the aggregating expression might be? Again, it cannot have anything to
do with the intellectual content of the expressions of the individual
works. It seems it would have to be a realization of the "glue" but I
find that rather abstract and very hard to imagine. Some attributes
still seem possible, e.g. context and use restrictions, if one feels
that this is worth recording. I'm also wondering if an aggregating
expression could have a relationship to a person or corporate body which
is not the creator of the aggregating work... Anyhow this makes me feel
that the aggregating expression is rather an empty concept. Perhaps it's
only there in order to adhere to the basic WEMI principle.
Also, what happens if, say, there is a second edition of a collection
with the same essays but in a revised form? I assume that there would
still be the same aggregating work involved. But would there be a new
aggregating expression? I feel this can't be, as the aggregating
expression is - as I said before - not really connected to the
expressions of the individual works. So perhaps the correct modeling
would have to have _one_ aggregating work and _one_ aggregating
expression which is embodied in two different manifestations. If this is
the right picture (and it may be not as the report doesn't say). I don't
quite see in what way an entity such as this could be at all useful.
Another point open to debate are boundaries between one aggregating work
and another. Think of textbooks which are sold over a long period of
time. The compilers (creators) may change over time, and the chapters
(by individual authors) may not only be continuously revised, but there
may be new chapters added, old ones abandoned, new authors introduced.
Now is all of this still the same aggregating work (I feel it should be)
or not? And how would that have to be modeled - one aggregating work and
one aggregating expression again? Would that be helpful for real life
cataloging?
Sorry about this longish and slightly confused mail which has probably
screwed up the minds of those who have actually followed my train of
thoughts. The bottom line is: These things are far from obvious, and
should have been addressed in the Final Report.
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
