Adolfo,
My understanding of FRBR is that regardless of independent existence prior to its
appearance, each poem, short story, song, etc., is considered a work in and of itself
regardless of whether their creator considered them such. Since a "compilation"
is simply defined as a gathering of multiple works, every aggregation of such items is a
compilation, again, regardless of whether the creator considered them collectively a
single work. I would be happy to be corrected if this isn't an accurate understanding of
FRBR.
FRBR says amazingly little about aggregates. There is no real definition
of a "compilation" either (by the way: there is also no definition of
this term in RDA).
Here's a quote from FRBR chapter 3.3, where we can find the basic
statement on aggregates:
"The structure of the model, however, permits us to represent aggregate
and component entities in the same way as we would
represent entities that are viewed as integral units. That is to say
that from a logical perspective the entity work, for example, may
represent an aggregate of individual works brought together by an editor
or compiler in the form of an anthology, a set of individual
monographs brought together by a publisher to form a series, or a
collection of private papers organized by an archive as a single fond.
By the same token, the entity work may represent an intellectually or
artistically discrete component of a larger work, such as a chapter of a
report, a segment of a map, an article in a journal, etc. For the
purposes of the model, entities at the aggregate or component level
operate in the same way as entities at the integral unit level; they are
defined in the same terms, they share the same characteristics, and they
are related to one another in the same way as entities at the integral
unit level."
The basic message here is that works can be seen on different levels,
and we find the same idea in RDA.
True, there is no distinction between different kinds of aggregate works
in FRBR, but I don't think this means that we're forced to treat all
kinds of aggregate works in an identical way in cataloging. Note that
collective titles aren't mentioned anywhere in FRBR. There is "title of
the work" as an attribute of the work, and therefore, there is a
corresponding element in RDA. But FRBR doesn't prescribe how this
element should be filled. It's up to the cataloging code to set up the
relevant instructions. So I can't see why it shouldn't be possible to
have one rule for something which was meant to be published as a unit by
the creator and a compilation which was only assembled only at a later
stage.
By the way: The FRBR Working Group on Aggregates doesn't accept the
notion of an *aggregate* work at all, see the final report:
http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf
Instead, they talk about an *aggregating* work which stands for the
creative effort of having put the things together. So, a book containing
three novels is not a manifestation of an aggregate work which in itself
is made up of three individual works. Instead what we have here (in the
view of the Working Group) is an aggregate manifestation, in which
*four* works are manifested: the three novels and the "aggregating work"
(i.e. the effort of the compiler).
They still haven't managed to convince me of that.
Heidrun
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
To unsubscribe from RDA-L send an e-mail to the following address from the
address you are subscribed under to:
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
In the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L
