[I'm behind on this thread, which raced forth over the weekend. Still
catching up...]
In the mean time, I'll respond to Karen and Heidrun's comments. To be
clear, I'm not suggesting certain works/expressions be "flagged" as
primary or secondary. What I'm referring to is the idea that certain
works/expressions need not even be identified in the data. According to
FRBR, we may know they exist, but identifying them (whether through
access points, identifiers, etc.) is of marginal utility in a case like
this.
Take Karen's third example, which has Nabokov's novel and an
introduction by the author (and, consequently, an aggregate of the two).
In AACR2, we identify the novel as the work (by assigning Nabokov as
main entry and giving a uniform title if needed). In a non-MARC data
environment based on FRBR, there is no need for main entry. However, we
still obviously care most about the novel contained in this resource
(and less so about the introduction). So, we link this manifestation to
the expression of Nabokov's work and call it a day. Just because there
is an augmenting work and an aggregating work out there "in the ether"
doesn't mean one is required to identify it in the data. If someone
wished to come back later and identify the introduction as a work in its
own right, they could do that.As Karen pointed out, this can seem
"devilish", but only when trying to envision it in a MARC environment.
The Aggregates report makes it clear that there may exist entities in
the FRBR model which are not worthy of bibliographic identification.
As for Karen's other question:
<snip>
Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A
Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression B
Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C
something else occurs to me about this model: there is no place for a
title proper for each of the expressions -- If A is the whole, and B and
C are individual works in A, then where are the titles proper for B and C?
</snip>
Title Proper is a Manifestation attribute. Expressions have no titles,
per se. I would say that if an augmenting Work (like a preface) didn't
have a title, that's all the more reason to forego identifying it. If
you did, you'd need to devise one in RDA. As for the aggregate Work, I
think the Title Proper for the Manifestation is the title of the
aggregate Work, even if it is also the title of the main Work. The
redundancy resulting from identifying both is yet another reason to
forego identifying the aggregate in the data, IMO.
Thanks,
Casey Alan Mullin
On 1/7/2012 7:28 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting Casey A Mullin <cmul...@stanford.edu>:
But regardless of whether the aggregate work and constituent work are
directly related, or related by virtue of a common manifestation, W/E
2 and 3 need not be identified for the user in this example. As I
stated previously, we may construe their existence, but the user need
only be presented with W/E 1 and the three M's that embody it.
I don't see how this could be done, algorithmically if the parts have
been given a relationship of "embodied in/expressed/" from the M to
the W. Note that each W could be expressed and manifested in a number
of different instances, so this is not a property of the work nor of
the expression. Nor, in the case of a main work and a secondary work,
is there any visible difference in the coding of this primary
relationship.
If 1, 2 and 3 are all coded identically, there is no way to know which
one is the aggregate and which are the individual works.
I need to back up here and say that we are talking about a linked data
model, not a fixed record, so the idea of "marking" a W as "secondary"
simply doesn't exist. Any such information needs to be in the
relationship of the W to the M. That was the example that I gave with
this:
w1
e1
m1 (the aggregate work)
w2
e2
m2 (one of the essays)
w3
e3
m3 (another essay)
m1
has part m2
m1
has part m3
I believe this is the only way to convey the information such that it
can be displayed as you wish to the user.
kc
I hope that makes sense.
Casey
On 1/6/2012 1:52 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting Casey A Mullin <cmul...@stanford.edu>:
Manifestation 1 (embodies E 1)
Manifestation 2 (embodies E 1)
Manifestation 3 (embodies E 1,2,3)
Is "embodies" a part/whole relationship? Because you only have one
option:
Manifestation expresses Expression
So this would be:
Manifestation 3 (expresses E1)
Manifestation 3 (expresses E2)
Manifestation 3 (expresses E3)
and each of those is a separate declaration of a relationship.
Without a whole/part relationship in there somewhere there is
nothing that says that one of them includes the others. They are all
equal. The M -> E relationship is not a whole/part relationship.
That might be ok, but again I ask about the user view - would all
three of these be displayed to the user if a search retrieved them
all? And would there be anything to indicate to the user that one of
them is a larger package for the other two?
kc
Entities we IDENTIFY (that is, fully so, beyond oblique mention in
statement of responsibility or other notes):
Work 1
Expression 1
Work/Expression 2-3 definitely exist, but their existence is
implied, and need not be identified using RDA's methods (access
points, identifiers)
Manifestations 1-3
The use case would be thus: User is presented with Work/Expression
1, then the 3 Manifestations embodying it. (Presumably, W/E 1 are
the primary entities of interest.) If the user wanted to probe
deeper, they could learn about the existence of W/E 2 (the
supplemental material) through its oblique mention in the
description for M 3.
As for how RDA turns this model into practice, the answer lies in
Chapter 17. Whatever the nature of a resource (aggregate or not),
RDA only requires at a minimum that the "predominant or
first-named" work/expression be identified. This language ought to
be clarified in light of this expanded understanding of aggregates;
that is, what is "predominant or first-named" in an aggregate
resource? For example, in a compilation, the aggregate W/E is
favored in our current MARC implementation scenario (resulting in
title main entry), but it needn't be. Rather, the encoding should
be agnostic as to which entities are selected as the most salient
for identification. It is not that FRBR is incompatible with our
needs going forward, it is that MARC is inadequate to encode
FRBRized data (which is probably why LC is ignoring Chapter 17 in
the current implementation scenario; it just can't be applied
correctly).
Casey
On 1/5/2012 5:36 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Maybe what we need to do is develop some use cases and see how
they would turn out. I'm less concerned about the cataloger view
than the user view. You've probably run into some description of
looking at FRBR from "bottom-up" vs. "top down." Some folks
consider the cataloger view to be bottom-up (from the thing in
hand to the Work) while the user view is top down (from the Work
to the item on the shelf).
Here are three items. I don't know if they are enough to
illustrate what worries me:
1.
LC control no.: 47003534
LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/47003534
Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal name: Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1899-1977.
Main title: Bend sinister [by] Vladimir Nabokov.
Published/Created: New York, H. Holt [1947]
Description: 242 p. 21 cm.
2.
LC control no.: 89040559
LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/89040559
Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal name: Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1899-1977.
Main title: Bend sinister / Vladimir Nabokov.
Published/Created: New York : Vintage International, 1990.
Description: xix, 241 p. ; 21 cm.
ISBN: 0679727272 : $9.95
Notes: Reprint. Originally published: New York : McGraw Hill,
1947.
3.
LC control no.: 81001594
LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/81001594
Type of material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal name: Nabokov, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1899-1977.
Main title: Bend sinister / Vladimir Nabokov ; with a new
introduction by the author.
Published/Created: Alexandria, Va. : Time-Life Books, 1981,
c1947.
Description: xviii, 217 p. ; 20 cm.
Based on the report of the FRBR aggregates group, I believe that
we would have:
Work 1 (#1, #2)
Expression 1 (#1, #2)
Manifestation 1 (#1)
Manifestation 2 (#2)
Work 2 (#3)
Expression 2 (#3)
Manifestation 3 (#3)
The latter is an aggregate work. Professor Wiesenmüller's approach
would create in addition something like (if I'm wrong about this,
shout out):
Work 1
has part1
Expression 1
Manifestation 3
Now, how to make this into something useful for the user.
Unfortunately we now have two Works that, as far as the user is
concerned, have pretty much the same content. One of the Works
points to all of the manifestations with the expression; one of
them points to one of the manifestations. This will look redundant
to the user. And I don't see how Work 2 can be removed from
display algorithmically. If we then add what is essentially an
analytic entry that links the non-aggregate Work 1 to
Manifestation 3, we're adding even more redundancy for the user.
The bottom line is that if every manifestation that has some
differences (prefaces, illustrations) becomes a separate Work,
adding MORE Work entities to clear this up will result in
duplicate entries from the user's viewpoint.
I'd love to be proven wrong on this.
kc
Quoting Casey A Mullin <cmul...@stanford.edu>:
[Disclaimer: I haven't read the report yet, though it's waiting
for me on my desk]
To me, the desire/need to have WEM for an aggregate, as well as
W(EM) for some or all of the constituents, doesn't bring us back
to ISBD/MARC. In some cases (e.g., music sound recordings,
conference proceedings), the W and E of an aggregate is merely a
placeholder which allows us to describe the Manifestation as a
whole, while the constituent WE are the primary entities of
interest. But, even in those cases, it can be just as important
to describe the aggregate W too, say for purposes of assigning
subject terms, relating editors responsible for the compilation,
etc. I think WEM for both host and constituent entities always
exist; it's just that different types of resources call for
differing levels of fullness in describing each entity, ranging
from just identifiers (as Jonathan stated) to fleshed-out
records/graphs.
The bottom line IMO is that our cataloging and end-user
interfaces should suppress the entities that are of little
interest (i.e., minimally described) while allowing for
describing and navigating robust whole-part relationships as
needed.And this is definitely a far cry from what MARC allows.
Therefore, I don't see the same conflict that Karen does. We can
have our cake and eat it too. :)
Casey
On 1/5/2012 2:06 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Heidrun,
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. In essence, nearly EVERY published item
is an aggregate - books have prefaces or illustrations from
other sources; musical recordings almost always include more
than one Work; serials are of course aggregates by their nature.
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.
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.
I find there to be a conflict between the FRBR view and the need
to catalog a package. And I don't think FRBR resolves it well,
which is what the aggregate group struggled with. But maybe the
problem is deeper.
kc
--
Casey A. Mullin
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com
--
"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise
retrieval that results from it to carry out research and
scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather than most of
the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and
intelligent minority is an important one for the cultural and
technological advancement of humanity. It is even possible that
if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might
enable the enlargement of that minority."
-Martha Yee
--
Casey A. Mullin
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com
--
"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise
retrieval that results from it to carry out research and
scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather than most of
the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent
minority is an important one for the cultural and technological
advancement of humanity. It is even possible that if we did a
better job of providing access to such data, we might enable the
enlargement of that minority."
-Martha Yee
--
Casey A. Mullin
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com
--
"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise
retrieval that results from it to carry out research and scholarship
may constitute an elite minority rather than most of the people of
the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority is an
important one for the cultural and technological advancement of
humanity. It is even possible that if we did a better job of
providing access to such data, we might enable the enlargement of
that minority."
-Martha Yee
--
Casey A. Mullin
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com
--
"Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results
from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather
than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority
is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is
even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might
enable the enlargement of that minority."
-Martha Yee
