Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Annette Nielsen [aniel...@softlinkint.com] Sent: January-31-12 7:36 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates >" And why all the new terminology? What's wrong with "edition", "citation", >"main entry", "subject and added >entries", etc.? Are we using new jargon to >make ourselves feel important? Mystify the uninitiated?" "Edition": The problems with the term "edition" are well explained in the original FRBR report (http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current5.htm ) . In separating out content from carrier, a term that can be applied to either is not that useful. "Revised edition" refers to content; "Large print edition" refers to carrier. Quote: "The problem with relying on commonly applied terms as a starting point for analyzing bibliographic relationships is that those terms are neither clearly defined nor uniformly applied." "Subject added entry". We also say that the work has a subject, which is stating a relationship between two separate "things" or "entities"-- the "work" and the "subject". "Subject added entry" describes how that relationship is carred out in one catalog scenario, but it's not as clear as defining an explicit relationship between two identified entities. Since the exercise behind RDA is to define the entities we've always talked about, the attributes of those entities we've always talked about, and the relationships we've always talked about, it just makes sense to use a toolset of terms that works across the board. As the FRBR report indicates, the end-user is the center of attention, and the process undertaken by the user can be explained quite simply using the new terminology: Quote: "Typically the user will formulate a search query using one or more attributes of the entity for which he or she is searching, and it is through the attribute that the user finds the entity sought. The relationships reflected in the bibliographic record provide additional information that assists the user in making connections between the entity found and other entities that are related to that entity." Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Mac said: " And why all the new terminology? What's wrong with "edition", "citation", "main entry", "subject and added entries", etc.? Are we using new jargon to make ourselves feel important? Mystify the uninitiated?" Questions I have been asking since this whole process began. Thank you Mac! Annette Nielsen Technical Writer t: +61 7 3124 6111 f: +61 7 3124 6222 e: aniel...@softlinkint.com This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legally privileged information and are intended solely for the named addressee. If you received this message in error, please keep the contents confidential and please email postmas...@softlink.com.au with "address error" in the subject line. -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2012 5:03 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Thomas said: >The lack of an authorized access point doesn't mean the entity >disappears or can't be accounted for. Control numbers and identifiers, >as well as the collection of associated elements (including title by >itself), can be used to point to an entity. I'm trying to picture this in a footnote or bibliography. I thought one goal of RDA was to "play with others". This turns our back on centuries of scholarly practice. Codes and\or "title by itself" would not work in the larger world. And why all the new terminology? What's wrong with "edition", "citation", "main entry", "subject and added entries", etc.? Are we using new jargon to make ourselves feel important? Mystify the uninitiated? I don't suppose reverting to known terms is part of the mandate of the RDA rewrite? __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas said: And to follow up on that, I think that "aggregating work" needs to redefined not as an entity, but as either a relationship or just an attribute of an entity. I agree. Perhaps a comparison to the case of a translation might be useful: When somebody translates a work, this intellectual/artistic effort might also be seen as a "work" - a "translating work" so to speak, quite similar to the Working Group's "aggregating work". But this is certainly not how it is pictured in FRBR. There, we don't have a new group 1 entity at all, but simply a "realized by" relationship between an expression of the original work (the translation) and the translator. The fact that it is a translation can be deduced from the language attribute of the expression. The same goes for a creator (of an ordinary, non-aggregate work): The act of creation is captured not as a separate group 1 entity, but again in the form of a relationship "created by". This confirms the assessment that the Working Group's "ing"-entities simply don't fit in with the FRBR framework. One could say an aggregating work exists when the relationship designator like "editor of compilation" exists, or one could just have a descriptive note describing the aggregating process as an attribute element. I think, a sound FRBR modeling would simply be to have a relationship between an aggregate work and its creator (i.e. the editor of the compilation). The fact that the work in question is aggregate can be either shown by means of a special attribute "aggregate" or perhaps simply by means of looking at the whole structure of relationships (in my alternative model, there's a structural difference between "an ordinary work with parts" and "an aggregate work"). I'd say the "editor of compilation" in RDA is some sort of shorthand for a full FRBR modeling. "Aggregating work" therefore shouldn't be seen as a Group 1 entity at all. It would never have a "title" in the sense of a work or manifestation having a title. Exactly my feelings. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: January-14-12 11:28 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates > Heidrun said: > >> Now I even wonder: Can an aggregating work have a title? > > Certainly they can: > > Shakespeare's Bonnets > Tennessee William's Plays > Faulkner's Short Stories > Conference on Biophysics > Equal Marriage Rights Symposium > Papers on Fracking >Sure, but these are plain simple _aggregate_ works, and not >_aggregating_ works in the sense of the Working Group. Remember their >claim: "The process of aggregating the expressions itself is an >intellectual or artistic effort and therefore meets the criteria for a >work." (p. 5). And in the "Understanding FRBR" example they say: "The >aggregating work encompasses all of the intellectual effort required to >identify the topics to be covered, solicit the authors, edit the >manuscripts, write the introduction, compile the index and other related >activities." (p. 13). The aggregating work therefore does not refer to >the _creation_ (e.g. a collection of essays or plays), but to the >_process_. Thomas said in one of his posts: "The aggregating work and >aggregating expression are entirely new entities that refer to an effort >of arrangement, and not the collective effort for the individual works." >Now: Could the "effort of arrangement" be something that has a title? I >doubt it. And to follow up on that, I think that "aggregating work" needs to redefined not as an entity, but as either a relationship or just an attribute of an entity. One could say an aggregating work exists when the relationship designator like "editor of compilation" exists, or one could just have a descriptive note describing the aggregating process as an attribute element. "Aggregating work" therefore shouldn't be seen as a Group 1 entity at all. It would never have a "title" in the sense of a work or manifestation having a title. One area to explore though is to look at relationships as being more complex-- which is to say that they may accrue attributes and new kinds of relationships. In fact, they are already: dramatization of (work) is subordinate to adaptation of (work) is subordinate to based on (work) is a Derivative Work Relationship is a Related Work Relationship Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Mac: Heidrun said: Now I even wonder: Can an aggregating work have a title? Certainly they can: Shakespeare's Bonnets Tennessee William's Plays Faulkner's Short Stories Conference on Biophysics Equal Marriage Rights Symposium Papers on Fracking Sure, but these are plain simple _aggregate_ works, and not _aggregating_ works in the sense of the Working Group. Remember their claim: "The process of aggregating the expressions itself is an intellectual or artistic effort and therefore meets the criteria for a work." (p. 5). And in the "Understanding FRBR" example they say: "The aggregating work encompasses all of the intellectual effort required to identify the topics to be covered, solicit the authors, edit the manuscripts, write the introduction, compile the index and other related activities." (p. 13). The aggregating work therefore does not refer to the _creation_ (e.g. a collection of essays or plays), but to the _process_. Thomas said in one of his posts: "The aggregating work and aggregating expression are entirely new entities that refer to an effort of arrangement, and not the collective effort for the individual works." Now: Could the "effort of arrangement" be something that has a title? I doubt it. Conference proceedings (i.e. papers) issues both independently and as an issue of a journal would have two expressions it seems to me. If it's exactly the same text, then to me these are two manifestations of the same expression. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Heidrun said: >Now I even wonder: Can an aggregating work have a title? Certainly they can: Shakespeare's Bonnets Tennessee William's Plays Faulkner's Short Stories Conference on Biophysics Equal Marriage Rights Symposium Papers on Fracking These are make up examples, but represent the types o things we catalogue regularly. Each contains works which can have an independent existence outside the aggregate work. Earlier, some rarely existed independently in print because of their brevity, apart from offprints, but often existed in other aggregate works. Now, the smaller works often exist independently as electronic items with their own PDF URL. The whole WEMI distinction seems pretty meaningless to me in terms of our current work. Certainly the aggregate work and the works contained have bibliographic reality, including titles. A paper delivered at a conference based on an earlier a thesis, seems to me to have had at least two expressions. A play in a collection which has been translated certainly has expressions. Conference proceedings (i.e. papers) issues both independently and as an issue of a journal would have two expressions it seems to me. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas wrote: Somewhere in this mix there is the notion of the "primary work" (a phrase found in RDA at 20.2.1.1.). Some of the RDA expression attributes and relationship elements settle around an idea that there are supplementary works being expressed as augmentations to a primary work. RDA 7.15 has illustrative content as illustrating the "primary content" of a resource. So maybe there is a soft way of handling augmented expressions, with elements like relationship designators (like "illustrator") that convey this complexity in indirect ways. If there's a primary work, there would be a primary expression, and a cluster of elements that fall just outside this boundary but still forming a uniquely identified expression entity. For real life cataloging I think this is a completely acceptable solution. I like a collection of short stories example. Say there's a collection of short stories by Alice Munro that she wrote and selected to be published together, with a collective title. Is this one expression? Or is it a set of expressions, one expression for each short story? I still feel that there is no need for having aggregate expressions at all (note that in my model there is no such thing). It only leads to a lot of problems and doesn't seem to solve any. Perhaps at a later time there is a "Best of ... " volume that has some of the short stories from the earlier publication (and let's say it's Alice Munro doing all the selecting or "aggregating" in that case as well). If the collective works are named entities, and required for different kinds of relationships, then it's impractical to downplay this reality in saying that that aggregates only exist at the manifestation level. Absolutely. But if we want to bring out the fact that an independently existing aggregate work is part of a new aggregate work, this can be modeled on the work level alone. Have a look again at fig. 3 in my "Additional diagrams #2" paper. The difference between the two "Selected works" editions of Jane Austen containing the same novels is depicted here through the parts of the two aggregate works (which lead to different expressions of the individual works). It's not exactly the same case, but the modeling could be done quite similarly for two collections containing a different set of short stories. And as the model is recursive (although the diagram then gets rather complicated), it would also be possible to have an aggregate work (such as an earlier collection) as a part of another aggregate work. There would still be, I believe, no need for aggregate expressions and whole/part relationships on the expression level. Also I think the notion of "aggregating work" is problematic-- it becomes an empty shell entity in this case. Not only there, I believe. I already put a long list of things which don't apply to an aggregating work. Now I even wonder: Can an aggregating work have a title? This certainly could not be the title of e.g. the collection or monographic series itself. It would have to be the title of the _process_ of aggregating things. It's really annoying that the final report doesn't give at least one example where they show the attributes of an aggregating work, and not only its relationships. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: January-12-12 3:26 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates >> These are "contributor" relationship designators between persons (or >> corporate bodies or families) and expressions. > >> But the report on aggregates follows up on the FRBR revision for >> expressions, where "augmentations, such as illustrations, notes, glosses, >> etc. that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of >> the work, such augmentations are considered to be separate expressions of >> their own separate work(s)." ( >> http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm#3.2 ) > > >Therefore, something like "illustrator" as a contributor to an expression is > >problematic. An illustration augmenting a work is now considered an > >expression of a separate work, not part >>of the expression of the original > >work. So the "illustrator" shouldn't really have a relationship to an > >expression, but rather be considered a Creator (specifically with the RDA > >designator >>"artist") of an illustrative work that augments another work. >Thanks for pointing out the difference between an illustrator and e.g. a >translator. We tend to think of these functions as being quite similar >as we have typically treated them alike, but indeed according to FRBR >they are rather different. >The problem is that In cases where we don't want to handle augmented >editions as aggregate works but still want to bring out the illustrator, >we need some entity for him or her to link to. It doesn't really matter >in an ordinary MARC file where the levels of work, expression and >manifestations are all muddled together anyway. But in other scenarios, >it would. There's an example I've come across that demonstrates the problem. Large print books can exclude such augmentations as bibliography, index, and illustrations on plates found in the regular print version. In RDA, there would be two expressions for each case (but still only one work), whereas the report on aggregations would have one main expression and several smaller ones that would only be noted (and there would be this unusual "aggregating expression" entity, at least in principle, for the aggregate manifestation with the augmentations). I think there is logic for both approaches. But I can recall with dismay when I was younger that there were versions of Lord of the Rings that were missing the appendixes. I felt cheated when I picked up such a version, since I wasn't getting the whole deal. In such a situation I would definitely come down on the side of saying this was a different expression. I would avoid any publications that had this truncated expression. But I also recognized that there were special illustrated editions with illustrations by Alan Lee, which meant that there were gradations in considering what were acceptable and ideal versions (or expressions). Somewhere in this mix there is the notion of the "primary work" (a phrase found in RDA at 20.2.1.1.). Some of the RDA expression attributes and relationship elements settle around an idea that there are supplementary works being expressed as augmentations to a primary work. RDA 7.15 has illustrative content as illustrating the "primary content" of a resource. So maybe there is a soft way of handling augmented expressions, with elements like relationship designators (like "illustrator") that convey this complexity in indirect ways. If there's a primary work, there would be a primary expression, and a cluster of elements that fall just outside this boundary but still forming a uniquely identified expression entity. There are other ways of categorizing entities like these ( FRBRoo has a wider range http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/frbr_oo/frbr_docs/FRBRoo_V1.0.1.pdf for a number of different circumstances). > >The definition of aggregate as being more than one expression in a > >manifestation leads to a paradox with an expression of a collective work. If > >it's "one" expression, then there is no >>aggregate, by definition, as there > >is only "one" expression embodied in a manifestation. But if each work has > >its component works identified, then there are suddenly many expressions > >>>embodied in the manifestation. In this case there still really shouldn't > >be an aggregating expression and aggregating work, because the origin
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas, lots of stimulating thought in your latest post. I'll just comment on some bits. These are "contributor" relationship designators between persons (or corporate bodies or families) and expressions. But the report on aggregates follows up on the FRBR revision for expressions, where "augmentations, such as illustrations, notes, glosses, etc. that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work, such augmentations are considered to be separate expressions of their own separate work(s)." ( http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm#3.2 ) Therefore, something like "illustrator" as a contributor to an expression is problematic. An illustration augmenting a work is now considered an expression of a separate work, not part of the expression of the original work. So the "illustrator" shouldn't really have a relationship to an expression, but rather be considered a Creator (specifically with the RDA designator "artist") of an illustrative work that augments another work. Thanks for pointing out the difference between an illustrator and e.g. a translator. We tend to think of these functions as being quite similar as we have typically treated them alike, but indeed according to FRBR they are rather different. The problem is that In cases where we don't want to handle augmented editions as aggregate works but still want to bring out the illustrator, we need some entity for him or her to link to. It doesn't really matter in an ordinary MARC file where the levels of work, expression and manifestations are all muddled together anyway. But in other scenarios, it would. The report would then have the two works (original work and illustration) realized as two expressions found together in an aggregating expression. Careful here. Just as the aggregating work doesn't contain the individual works, the aggregating expression does not contain the expressions of the individual work. It really is extremely tricky... For example, in this light, here's how I would recast what an illustrator is Illustrator - is a person who supplements (or augments) a work by creating an illustrative work that is expressed with an expression of the work I like this definition very much. That tiny designator, "illustrator" packs quite a punch -- it carries within it a notion of a work (the illustrative work), and it points to the two expressions combined together that form a specific, augmented expression that explicitly realizes only one work -- the original "primary work". The problem is: what to make of that augmented expression. Is it two expressions realizing two works? Or is it one expression explicitly realizing one primary work, but also capturing a hidden relationship to another work via the relationship designator "illustrator"? If we model it in FRBR, I think it should look like the figure 2 in my "additional diagrams" paper ( http://tinyurl.com/7j85e5u ); the only difference is that I used an introduction as example, and not illustrations. So I don't think we should have an "augmented expression" at all (which also means, I do not agree with RDA 20.2.1.1 in this respect). If we then decide not to bring out the augmentation in a FRBR like way in actual cataloging, what happens is that the bit of the picture around E (W2) simply disappears, or rather, is just not carried out. The same goes for the aggregate work itself. Now the problem is that we'd still want to keep the information of the "augmentor" (is there a real English word for this?) who would - if correctly modeled - be the creator of a part of the aggregate work. So we need to "transpose" the creator of the illustrations to some other entity, which is actually there in real life cataloging. I don't think there is a neat way of doing it, so you'll have to make a compromise whatever you do. In RDA, these are attributes of expressions that point to augmentations that in principle are expressions of other works: 7.12 Language of the Content Examples: Commentary in English In Polish; tables of contents and summaries in Polish, Russian and English 7.14 Accessibility Content Example: Closed captioning in German 7.15 Illustrative Content Example: illustrations 7.16 Supplementary Content Example: Includes index Quite true. I hadn't realized the question of aggregate works arises in so many places. The definition of aggregate as being more than one expression in a manifestation leads to a paradox with an expression of a collective work. If it's "one" expression, then there is no aggregate, by definition, as there is only "one" expression embodied in a manifestation. But if each work has its component works identified, then there are suddenly many expressions embodied in the manifestation. In this case there still really shouldn't be an aggregating expression and aggregating work, because the original collective work has all the roles covered. W
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
On 12/01/2012 12:12, Bernhard Eversberg wrote: No matter, however, how excellent Ms Oliver's product will turn out, the major roadblock on RDA's way to success will remain its closedness as a subscription product. So, under the circumstances given, how big is the chance of RDA succeeding anyway? I think the MRI business of Mac and Michal Gorman, together with the Open Cataloging Rules approach of Jim Weinheimer, have all the potential to lead into a future for cataloging that is both affordable and sustainable, open for more, inviting for collaboration across borders, and down to earth. The "circumstances given" will not change significantly, I think, before there is a new data model plus codification in a manageable, learnable, implementable, and efficient MARC replacement. Under the present circumstances, RDA implementation - if not going way beyond the test data! - could hardly justify the expense. And this expense comes at a highly critical time. I am still in a state of shock about the finding of poverty in the United States! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/ In such a climate, I think we can all safely assume that finding additional money for libraries will probably take a back seat to more vital concerns for quite a long time. There is currently a very interesting email discussion going on, on the alcts-eforum list, talking about "The Incredible Shrinking Cataloging Department," where people are talking about how they are dealing with less staff for more work. On the bright side, there does appear to be some hiring, and replacement of cataloging staff is going on, but the major trend seems to be outsourcing through shelf-ready copy. One interesting observation was that when a cataloger leaves or retires, in many libraries there is not the previous automatic response to replace the position, but to reconsider what are the needs of the library as a whole. Also, there appears to be an increase in the use of students, when possible. Naturally, the new data models and methods and rules should be tested (should have been long ago) to discover if they meet the needs of the *public* better than what we have now. Still haven't seen it, but I won't bore everyone with going over that ground again. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
11.01.2012 21:14, Gene Fieg: Somewhere in this thread, there was statement FRBR and RDA, whose English was muddy, to say the least. One of the most important things that can be done to RDA is to rewrite it--in the understanding that a sentence should be subject, verb, object. As it stands now, who knows what anything means and we end up with constant interpretations of muddy language. The rewriting will be an interesting exercise. Chris Oliver should be on it right now, and will hopefully report on the experience afterwards. The language is strongly influenced by database technicians' manners of speaking. One must of course get those people to better understand the nuts and bolts of our craft, so it might be no bad idea to keep the current version as one of eventually several (or as the publishers will hope, many) language versions. On paper, the RDA text suffers from reduncancy which results from the attempt to make every paragraph understandable when displayed alone, outside its context. The term they are using is, I think, "rewording", not "rewriting", and that will mean that the arrangement of chapter and verse will remain exactly as it is. Thinking of said redundancy, the task will not become easier because of that, but without that restriction, the whole thing might spin out of control and into utter confusion. No matter, however, how excellent Ms Oliver's product will turn out, the major roadblock on RDA's way to success will remain its closedness as a subscription product. So, under the circumstances given, how big is the chance of RDA succeeding anyway? I think the MRI business of Mac and Michal Gorman, together with the Open Cataloging Rules approach of Jim Weinheimer, have all the potential to lead into a future for cataloging that is both affordable and sustainable, open for more, inviting for collaboration across borders, and down to earth. The "circumstances given" will not change significantly, I think, before there is a new data model plus codification in a manageable, learnable, implementable, and efficient MARC replacement. Under the present circumstances, RDA implementation - if not going way beyond the test data! - could hardly justify the expense. B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
From: Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: January-11-12 3:53 AM To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access Cc: Brenndorfer, Thomas Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates >Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: > >That's an excellent point, and I see the difference better now. I had > >begun mulling over the comparison of an "aggregate" -- a collection in > >the conventional sense -- and "aggregating", a new concept referring > >to the effort to bring things together. The aggregating work and > >aggregating expression are entirely new entities that refer to an > >effort of arrangement, and not the collective effort for the > >individual works. . >So a large part of the things which are normal for works do not apply to >aggregating works. I find it especially problematic that there are >almost no relationships, as FRBR (as I understand it) is all about >making connections between things (entities). Taken together, I get the >strong impression that an aggregating work is no proper work at all, but >only a "pseudo work". I think (at this point in my explorations) "aggregating work" and "aggregating expression" are not the right tools to use to describe what's going, although they do point to an interesting problem. The tools to use shouldn't be something like Group 1 entities, but rather something like relationship elements. There are three tools to use: entity, attribute element, relationship element. The "-ing" word "aggregating" points to an effort, an activity, a role. There are numerous relationship designators that capture those kinds of processes in RDA already. Specifically, the RDA relationship designators "editor of compilation" and "illustrator" are useful to look at. These are "contributor" relationship designators between persons (or corporate bodies or families) and expressions. But the report on aggregates follows up on the FRBR revision for expressions, where "augmentations, such as illustrations, notes, glosses, etc. that are not integral to the intellectual or artistic realization of the work, such augmentations are considered to be separate expressions of their own separate work(s)." ( http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm#3.2 ) Therefore, something like "illustrator" as a contributor to an expression is problematic. An illustration augmenting a work is now considered an expression of a separate work, not part of the expression of the original work. So the "illustrator" shouldn't really have a relationship to an expression, but rather be considered a Creator (specifically with the RDA designator "artist") of an illustrative work that augments another work. The report would then have the two works (original work and illustration) realized as two expressions found together in an aggregating expression. There is a problem here, but maybe there are better solutions. RDA would have it differently... RDA 20.2.1.1: "For expressions consisting of a primary work accompanied by commentary, etc., illustrations, additional musical parts, etc., the writers of commentary, etc., illustrators, composers of additional parts, etc., are considered to be contributors." This gives greater weight to what a "contributor" is -- I think this even removes the need for the aggregating work and aggregating expression, but it might lead to a redefinition of the existing elements. For example, in this light, here's how I would recast what an illustrator is Illustrator - is a person who supplements (or augments) a work by creating an illustrative work that is expressed with an expression of the work That tiny designator, "illustrator" packs quite a punch -- it carries within it a notion of a work (the illustrative work), and it points to the two expressions combined together that form a specific, augmented expression that explicitly realizes only one work -- the original "primary work". The problem is: what to make of that augmented expression. Is it two expressions realizing two works? Or is it one expression explicitly realizing one primary work, but also capturing a hidden relationship to another work via the relationship designator "illustrator"? I think the latter definition is OK. If FRBR was revised to avoid the proliferation of expressions, then an "aggregating expression" just reintroduces the problem, as aggregating expressions exist in principle for every instance in which there are augmentations. In RDA, these are attributes of expressions that point to augmentations that in principle are expressions of other
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Somewhere in this thread, there was statement FRBR and RDA, whose English was muddy, to say the least. One of the most important things that can be done to RDA is to rewrite it--in the understanding that a sentence should be subject, verb, object. As it stands now, who knows what anything means and we end up with constant interpretations of muddy language. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Simon Spero wrote: > I would note that the recommendation is not unanimous, and a concurrence > in part and dissent in part is included as an appendix to the report. > > [I'm slowly writing a fuller analysis of this issue, as well as some of > the comments made in this thread suggest some confusion over some > theoretical aspects of FRBR-style models, as well as some Ontological > statements that are stronger than may be intended. ] > > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
I would note that the recommendation is not unanimous, and a concurrence in part and dissent in part is included as an appendix to the report. [I'm slowly writing a fuller analysis of this issue, as well as some of the comments made in this thread suggest some confusion over some theoretical aspects of FRBR-style models, as well as some Ontological statements that are stronger than may be intended. ]
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: That's an excellent point, and I see the difference better now. I had begun mulling over the comparison of an "aggregate" -- a collection in the conventional sense -- and "aggregating", a new concept referring to the effort to bring things together. The aggregating work and aggregating expression are entirely new entities that refer to an effort of arrangement, and not the collective effort for the individual works. Very aptly put. The Working Group claims that this is all "straightforward" (p. 3 and p. 5), which had me laughing out loud. It may be many things ("unnecessary" comes to mind), but certainly not that. Rather, it takes a lot of intellectual effort merely to grasp the new concept at all, especially as it goes completely against our intuition and everyday cataloging experience. I wonder: If something is that difficult to understand, _can_ it be a good thing? Granted, Einstein's Theory of relativity is thought to be a good thing, although it's hard to understand. But cataloging theory should be simpler than that, surely? I also find that the aggregating work envisioned by the Working Group (in the main body of the report) just doesn't fit in within the broader FRBR concept. You could call it a foreign body, an odd one out. Let's have a closer look at it: Firstly, it's odd that the basis for this kind of work is a "process": "The process of aggregating the expressions itself is an intellectual or artistic effort and therefore meets the criteria for a work." (p. 5). In FRBR, the definition of a work is not a process, but a "creation" ("a distinct intellectual or artistic creation, FRBR 2008, p. 17). So this is already stretching FRBR a lot (and we might wonder whether the intellectual effort of e.g. understanding the model of the Working Group is, then, a work as well?). But being broadminded, let's accept this claim for the sake of argument. Now what kind of work have we got? As I've noted in an earlier post, at least it can have some of the attributes for a work, but not all of them. Now let's look at the relationships. Primary relationships: The Working Group claims that the aggregating work has a relationship to an aggregating expression. For the life of me I cannot imagine what the expression of a process could be. According to FRBR, an expression is "the specific intellectual or artistic form that a work takes each time it is 'realized.'". I've already pointed out in an earlier post that an aggregating expression cannot have a "form" attribute in the first place. So, this seems to be completely twisted. Relationships to FRBR group 2 (persons, corporate bodies, families): There can obviously be one or more creators. So, this looks o.k. Relationships to FRBR group 3 (topics of works): We draw a complete blank here, as an aggregating work simply cannot have a topic. Work-to-work relationships: A complete blank again. We've already covered the fact that an aggregating work can't have whole/part relationships. Things like "has a successor/is a successor", "has a supplement/supplements", "has adaptation/is an adaptation of" a.s.o. also cannot be applied to a "process work". So a large part of the things which are normal for works do not apply to aggregating works. I find it especially problematic that there are almost no relationships, as FRBR (as I understand it) is all about making connections between things (entities). Taken together, I get the strong impression that an aggregating work is no proper work at all, but only a "pseudo work". Now if we look at the "aggregating expression", it get's even worse. I've already pointed out in an earlier post that this entity seems to be almost "empty", as most of the ordinary attributes of an expression don't apply, especially not form or language. Also, I don't see a possibility for relationships to another expression (things like translation, revision, abridgement are all either related to language or content). And I can't think of a relationship to a person or corporate body, either. So there's even less left of the FRBR framework here than with the aggregating work. 2. An expression with components embodied in the manifestation (whole-part relationships can be found here, with relationships between the individual expressions and the whole). These whole-part relationships are still allowed in the report with its suggested rewording in FRBR 3.4. This has me completely mystified. Perhaps it really means that an aggregating work and a conventional aggregate work can coexist at the same time (although the Working Group couldn't be bothered about how this should be modeled). But what, I wonder, could be the point of having both at the same time, especially as there can be no relationships between them? All the things which are of interest to librarians and users in the context of aggregates can, I believe, be handled by an aggregate work - and,
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Mac wrote: Heidrun said: Then something similar could be used to catch the primary/secondary aspect in augmentations ... Are we using primary/secondary in two ways? That is, to refer to the aggregate (e.g., conference proceedings vs. a paper in the proceedings), and to a basic work and its added bits (e.g., the preface, introduction, bibliography, and index in a particular manifestation)? These seem two very different things to me, and are certainly considered so by our clients. Some get 505 and perhaps 7XX; others get their own records. I'd say the two cases are similar in so far as they would both be modeled using whole/part relationships. But they are also somewhat different, as in the "conference proceedings vs. paper in the proceedings" case all papers would be seen as full-fledged, whereas in the "novel vs. introduction" case we feel that it would be useful to distinguish somehow between the main component and the supplemental component. My proposal was to do this by using a "supplements" relationship between the work entity for the introduction and the work entity for the novel. In the conference proceedings case you wouldn't have such additional horizontal relationships, but only the whole/part relationship. I can see a library purchasing a particular chapter. But would a library ever purchase a preface, introduction, bibliography, or index apart from the whole e-book? I feel guilty charging to create records for those. That was Casey's point: Although the theoretical model should be be able to capture all cases (including augmentations), this doesn't mean we'd really want to treat an augmented edition of a novel as an aggregate and make a separate record for the introduction in actual cataloging. Mostly, we wouldn't. But if there was some demand for a separate record, then it could be done according to the model. Think of a special library collecting _everything_ by a certain scholar and presenting that in a specialized database. They would certainly buy a book with an introduction by that person and would then not only want a record for the book as a whole, but also a separate one for the introduction to be included in their special database. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Bernhard said: >Is this item (record) at the same time an item (record) of/for each of >the manifestations that are glued together in the volume? So that these >will not need their own, separate item records - for there may well be >item-level characteristics for the constituent parts? (And think what >that would mean for circulation since they cannot circulate separately. >There will have to be only one barcode.) But the papers from conference proceedings and continuing education symposia *are* sold separately by their e-publishers, and often have their own e-ISBNs, URLs, and DOIs, even if no bar codes! Print analogies do not work for over 75% of our work load. This discussion seems more and more removed from the work we do. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Heidrun said: >"an aggregate is defined as a manifestation embodying multiple distinct >expressions." (p. 3). This means that the only aggregate entity they >accept is a _manifestation_. There is no room for an aggregate _work_ i Aren't conference proceedings and continuing education symposia to be considered works? If not, what are they, and their relationship to the papers they contain? Colour me very confused by this entire discussion. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Heidrun said: >Then something similar could be used to catch the primary/secondary >aspect in augmentations ... Are we using primary/secondary in two ways? That is, to refer to the aggregate (e.g., conference proceedings vs. a paper in the proceedings), and to a basic work and its added bits (e.g., the preface, introduction, bibliography, and index in a particular manifestation)? These seem two very different things to me, and are certainly considered so by our clients. Some get 505 and perhaps 7XX; others get their own records. This is all very theoretical in the midst of dealing with the needs of a new e-publisher client, who doesn't know what a MARC/AACR2 record is, only that their library clients want those records. I can see a library purchasing a particular chapter. But would a library ever purchase a preface, introduction, bibliography, or index apart from the whole e-book? I feel guilty charging to create records for those. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller : By the way, I find it rather absurd to have to speculate about the "true meaning" of the report in this way. It's not a theological tract from the Middle Ages, is it? If it were, we could just pretend to believe and go on about our business. that would be much easier! kc Moreover, I'm fairly sure that all the members of the Working Group are subscribed to this list and probably following this thread closely. So I really would appreciate it if someone would clarify the matter. If my interpretation is wrong after all, I'll leap for joy. One last point: There is no such thing as a "FRBR police". So, of course, we can all just go on using whole/part relationships as a means of modeling aggregates, simply ignoring the model of the Working Group. I expect this is exactly what will happen if the Final Report is approved as is (which I sincerely hope it won't). 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
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller > Sent: January 10, 2012 3:52 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > > One addendum to my last mail: > > Thanks to Thomas Berger again, I've noted that it says on p. 5 of the > report: "An aggregating work is not a discrete section or even > necessarily an identifiable part of the resulting manifestation and does > not contain the aggregated works themselves." > > I think the last part of this sentence is ample proof that there cannot > be a whole/part relationship between the aggregating work (in the "glue" > sense of the Working Group) and the individual works. > That's an excellent point, and I see the difference better now. I had begun mulling over the comparison of an "aggregate" -- a collection in the conventional sense -- and "aggregating", a new concept referring to the effort to bring things together. The aggregating work and aggregating expression are entirely new entities that refer to an effort of arrangement, and not the collective effort for the individual works. I think the crux of the matter appears in a particular case where there's both an "aggregate collection of expressions" and an "aggregate resulting from augmentation." A specific collection of short stories may appear in multiple publications, and each publication could be augmented differently with such additional expressions as introductions, notes, and illustrations. That collection of short stories is what has typically been identified, in the structure for the overall heading for the whole and in analytics for each part. But the reality considering each publication embodying those collected short stories is that there might be a large number of aggregating expressions in principle, given the number of different augmentations, and the effort that went into the arrangement for them. So there might be one persistent collection or aggregate of independent expressions, but a huge number of aggregating expressions for each publication with different dependent augmentations. [Also, in considering this, how many manifestations would not be considered "aggregate manifestations" in principle, given that every augmentation is its own expression? Flagging a manifestation as an "aggregate manifestation" might not have very much meaning.] In the original view of aggregates and components, that collection of expressions doesn't become an aggregating expression-- it just becomes its own whole expression, but with parts, with each part remaining its own expression. In modeling this, I can see: 1. Individual expressions embodied in a manifestation (these relationships allowed by the unique many-to-many aspect of expressions embodied in a manifestation). 2. An expression with components embodied in the manifestation (whole-part relationships can be found here, with relationships between the individual expressions and the whole). These whole-part relationships are still allowed in the report with its suggested rewording in FRBR 3.4. 3. An aggregating expression embodied in the manifestation (which also means a realization of a specific aggregating work). But this aggregating expression would be triggered based the declaration of the individual independent expressions and/or the dependent augmentations. Is there a conflict when only the collective expression is declared in a particular instance, without the parts being identified, and without any augmentations declared? If there is only one expression embodied in the manifestation, then there cannot be an aggregating expression, even in principle, but perhaps in other contexts, that one (collective) expression may be shown with relationships to its component parts. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Am 10.01.2012 09:52, schrieb Heidrun Wiesenmüller: I think the last part of this sentence is ample proof that there cannot be a whole/part relationship between the aggregating work (in the "glue" sense of the Working Group) and the individual works. So if we now turn our attention to the item level: An item of a glued-together collection of articles is one bound volume, i.e. one physical item. It has thus to be recorded in some sort of record or array of rdf triples (together forming one virtual item record). Is this item (record) at the same time an item (record) of/for each of the manifestations that are glued together in the volume? So that these will not need their own, separate item records - for there may well be item-level characteristics for the consituent parts? (And think what that would mean for circulation since they cannot circulate separately. There will have to be only one barcode.) Up until now, item data have often resided in separate circulation databases or tables, not being part of the bib database but containing data elements now to be considered catalog data elements under FRBR. There's usually an n:1 relationship with the bib records. Can this go unchanged? Or will the FRBR item level perhaps be optional for the local level, leaving things as they are with, some FRBR bib elements still part of the circ data? B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
One addendum to my last mail: Thanks to Thomas Berger again, I've noted that it says on p. 5 of the report: "An aggregating work is not a discrete section or even necessarily an identifiable part of the resulting manifestation and does not contain the aggregated works themselves." I think the last part of this sentence is ample proof that there cannot be a whole/part relationship between the aggregating work (in the "glue" sense of the Working Group) and the individual works. Heidrun Heidrun Wiesenmueller wrote: Thomas, No, the scope of the report emphasized the primary relationships, but the nature of the entities cover what is already covered by other relationships, such as existing whole-part relationships. There are already many conventions for situations when individual entities interact with collective entities, and they are still valid even when primary relationships are explored and enumerated. This quote from the report shows that all the common situations for collections within a single resource apply to the analysis of aggregating expressions: "A distinctive characteristic of collections is that the individual works are usually similar in type and/or genre such as a collection of novels by a particular author, songs by a particular artist, or an anthology of a genre of poetry." http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf I'm sorry, but I just don't see that. As Karen said earlier in this thread (with respect to a different matter, though): "I would love to be proven wrong about this." But I'm afraid that I'm not. Your quote comes directly after the bit where they define an aggregate: "an aggregate is defined as a manifestation embodying multiple distinct expressions." (p. 3). This means that the only aggregate entity they accept is a _manifestation_. There is no room for an aggregate _work_ in this model. The heading for the paragraph in question is "Aggregate collection of expression" which also makes it clear that they talk on manifestation level here, not on work level. It's put a bit more precise in the proposed FRBR amendment on p. 6: "Collections are aggregates of independently created expressions published together in a single manifestation such as journals (aggregates of articles), multiple novels published in a single volume, books with independently written chapters, musical CDs (aggregates of individual songs), anthologies, etc.)." So, again, I believe this means that there is no "collection as a work" but only a "collection as a manifestation". This also fits in with the explanation given about the aggregating work (not: aggregate work) involved in the "Understanding FRBR" example (p. 13): "The aggregating work encompasses all of the intellectual effort required to identify the topics to be covered, solicit the authors, edit the manuscripts, write the introduction, compile the index and other related activities." It's clear from this that the aggregating work is - as I tried to explain yesterday - rather the drawing of a line around individual works, but not the sum of the individual works themselves. Therefore, in this model there simply cannot be a whole/part relationship between an aggregating work in this "glue" sense and an ordinary work contained in a collection. Note also that in Appendix B, a part of the members of the Working Group seem to present a minority vote. Whereas in the section about modeling aggregates in the main body of the report, there is no mentioning of whole/part relationships, the "dissenting" group members _do_ talk about whole/part relationships and they also give a completely different definition of an aggregate (which they call an "operational definition"), which is not limited to the manifestation (indeed it goes even further than the Group 1 entities, but this is yet another matter): "an aggregate entity is the "whole" in a "whole/part" relationship with two or more components (parts)." (p. 19). So with this definition, you can easily have an "aggregate work", and this is in accordance with the traditional view of aggregates and the way we all seem to think about it. You are, of course, absolutely right in emphasizing that with respect to things like e.g. collections, whole/part relationships have been around in actual cataloging for a long time. All the more amazing that the report (in the main body of the text) completely ignores this! I do wonder, though, whether the Working Group thinks that it might be possible to have an aggregating work in the "glue" sense and an aggregate work in the traditional sense together at the same time. Maybe this possibility is hinted at in 3.4 of the proposed amendment ("The structure of the model also permits Group1 entities to have components or parts."), Still, I doubt that this is what they really had in mind, and personally, I'd find this a very unsatisfactory modelling. By the way, I find it r
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas, No, the scope of the report emphasized the primary relationships, but the nature of the entities cover what is already covered by other relationships, such as existing whole-part relationships. There are already many conventions for situations when individual entities interact with collective entities, and they are still valid even when primary relationships are explored and enumerated. This quote from the report shows that all the common situations for collections within a single resource apply to the analysis of aggregating expressions: "A distinctive characteristic of collections is that the individual works are usually similar in type and/or genre such as a collection of novels by a particular author, songs by a particular artist, or an anthology of a genre of poetry." http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf I'm sorry, but I just don't see that. As Karen said earlier in this thread (with respect to a different matter, though): "I would love to be proven wrong about this." But I'm afraid that I'm not. Your quote comes directly after the bit where they define an aggregate: "an aggregate is defined as a manifestation embodying multiple distinct expressions." (p. 3). This means that the only aggregate entity they accept is a _manifestation_. There is no room for an aggregate _work_ in this model. The heading for the paragraph in question is "Aggregate collection of expression" which also makes it clear that they talk on manifestation level here, not on work level. It's put a bit more precise in the proposed FRBR amendment on p. 6: "Collections are aggregates of independently created expressions published together in a single manifestation such as journals (aggregates of articles), multiple novels published in a single volume, books with independently written chapters, musical CDs (aggregates of individual songs), anthologies, etc.)." So, again, I believe this means that there is no "collection as a work" but only a "collection as a manifestation". This also fits in with the explanation given about the aggregating work (not: aggregate work) involved in the "Understanding FRBR" example (p. 13): "The aggregating work encompasses all of the intellectual effort required to identify the topics to be covered, solicit the authors, edit the manuscripts, write the introduction, compile the index and other related activities." It's clear from this that the aggregating work is - as I tried to explain yesterday - rather the drawing of a line around individual works, but not the sum of the individual works themselves. Therefore, in this model there simply cannot be a whole/part relationship between an aggregating work in this "glue" sense and an ordinary work contained in a collection. Note also that in Appendix B, a part of the members of the Working Group seem to present a minority vote. Whereas in the section about modeling aggregates in the main body of the report, there is no mentioning of whole/part relationships, the "dissenting" group members _do_ talk about whole/part relationships and they also give a completely different definition of an aggregate (which they call an "operational definition"), which is not limited to the manifestation (indeed it goes even further than the Group 1 entities, but this is yet another matter): "an aggregate entity is the "whole" in a "whole/part" relationship with two or more components (parts)." (p. 19). So with this definition, you can easily have an "aggregate work", and this is in accordance with the traditional view of aggregates and the way we all seem to think about it. You are, of course, absolutely right in emphasizing that with respect to things like e.g. collections, whole/part relationships have been around in actual cataloging for a long time. All the more amazing that the report (in the main body of the text) completely ignores this! I do wonder, though, whether the Working Group thinks that it might be possible to have an aggregating work in the "glue" sense and an aggregate work in the traditional sense together at the same time. Maybe this possibility is hinted at in 3.4 of the proposed amendment ("The structure of the model also permits Group1 entities to have components or parts."), Still, I doubt that this is what they really had in mind, and personally, I'd find this a very unsatisfactory modelling. By the way, I find it rather absurd to have to speculate about the "true meaning" of the report in this way. It's not a theological tract from the Middle Ages, is it? Moreover, I'm fairly sure that all the members of the Working Group are subscribed to this list and probably following this thread closely. So I really would appreciate it if someone would clarify the matter. If my interpretation is wrong after all, I'll leap for joy. One last point: There is no such thing as a "FRBR police". So, of course, we can all just go on using whole/part rela
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Casey A Mullin wrote: 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. I do understand your point. However, I'm still brooding about the question of "flagging" the main component and the accompanying works (like an introduction) in an aggregate work. This certainly would be useful in the cases where you decide something like an introduction is so important that it should come out in the data as well. I had originally thought the flagging could be done by using a new attribute in the "work part" entity, and then Karen had quite rightly pointed out that a part of a work is a work in its own right and cannot be primary or secondary per se. And of course indeed I don't want to mark it as primary or secondary per se, but just in the context of an aggregate work. Now it occured to me that this is similar to the sequence of parts in an ordinary work. E.g., "The fellowship of the rings" is the _first_ part of the "Lord of the rings", and not the second. As with the "primary/secondary" aspect, the information "first" only makes sense in connection to the work as a whole. How would that be modelled? There doesn't seem to be a fitting attribute on the work level in FRBR or FRAD. But perhaps it could be done using relationships between the parts; "has a successor/is a successor" might do the trick. Then something similar could be used to catch the primary/secondary aspect in augmentations, e.g. by viewing the introduction as a supplement. So the relationship would be: [work: novel] - has a supplement/supplements - [work: introduction] Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Barbara, 1. Naming the parts - by having the relationship/link to the whole, you alleviate the necessity of having to provide a "title" for the parts that includes the title of the whole. There may continue to be a need for a default display form to name the work, but I hope we can eventually get away from the need for a "heading" or "authorized access point" (other than a default used for displays), so the display context could govern what additions are needed for naming an entity. Of course, if the title of the part coincidentally does include the title of the whole, then that should be given as found. For display purposes both titles (whole and part) can be displayed when needed depending on the context. Thanks for pointing that out. I was a bit worried about having two entities with basically the same attributes, but now I see that the different relationships would be enough to distinguish between them. It's easier to see if one thinks of both attributes and relationships as data elements (in the RDA sense). Then it doesn't matter whether the entities differ on attributes or relationships. 2. Yes, and FRBR already provides for the whole/part relationships and the inherent relationships as you describe. The whole/part is obvious, but after looking through the work-work relationships in FRBR I still wonder which could be used for the individual/aggregate relationship. Could you give me a hint? Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
09.01.2012 23:25, Karen Coyle: And it also seems that in your scenario, aggregates link whole/part between expressions but not between works? Is there a reason why they would not link at the work? I did a very ugly diagram of this... http://kcoyle.net/temp/frbragg.pdf If it's too ugly I can try a do-over. It is nice enough to convince me (but maybe just me) that chances to get this implemented AND working well, and then chances to get catalogers/agencies to produce decent data following this model, on a grand scale, are not any fraction above zero. Not even talking of the legacy. But the job all this is supposed to do, or most of it and as much as will be needed, can be done (again, maybe no one else but me is convinced here) by some minor extensions of the 7xx and 6xx fields, based on LCSH work records, to turn them into work headings and work+expression headings, then index these cleverly enough to assist some helpful display arrangements. Any record then might carry this kind of 6xx and 7xx fields to allow for all conceivable linkings to works and expressions and manifestations, whether covered by the theory or, in exceptions, not. Legacy data might be upgraded, where need is felt, gradually, with no big effort. It may be felt as utterly pedestrian, it would fall short of the sublime FRBR theory, but let's explore what users may need and expect, and what they get already from other sources that are not based on any comparably sophisticated theory. And what we can afford. But OK, go ahead, implement it, demonstrate it, prove its viablity and value and you win me over. Surely I'm not bold enough, after quite some time in this business... B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle > Sent: January 9, 2012 5:26 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > > Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" : > > > > Because there are many-to-many relationships that are horizontal as > > well as the many-to-many primary relationship unique to expressions > > and manifestations. > > > > For the case of the aggregating expression, going over it again ... > > > > An expression may be embodied in a manifestation. That expression > > could be accompanied by other expressions embodied in the same > > manifestation. That's a vertical many-to-one scenario-- > > expression(s) to manifestation. One doesn't need a special > > whole/part relationship for this, because the primary relationship > > (a vertical relationship) establishes this. > > > > The resulting aggregating expression has whole-part relationships to > > each constituent expression. That's a horizontal many-to-one scenario. > > Following this logic, I doubt there would be a > manifestation/manifestation whole/part, except in perhaps a "bound > with" situation. Do you agree? > I think that manifestation scenario is a red herring. The several titles involved -- the collective title and the titles of the contents -- are covered by RDA 2.3.2.6 which says to use the titles of the contents as titles of the related works (in this case, the contained works within the aggregating work). The sections of the manifestation with their own title don’t become manifestations in their own right by virtue of being separately titled [it is more of a problem though when there really are different physical pieces, perhaps different carriers, and linking those to specific expressions is desired]. Those content titles can be values for structured descriptions (i.e. 505 content notes, 740 analytical titles) or used for the Preferred Title of the Work and the basis of an authorized access point (which the Expression can inherit). I do see problems when the title varies, as it becomes difficult when the Preferred Title of the Work is not the actual title on the manifestation-- but that’s a whole different set of problems. > And it also seems that in your scenario, aggregates link whole/part > between expressions but not between works? Is there a reason why they > would not link at the work? > The original report covers this. Catalogers have in the past declared the whole-part relationships at the aggregating work level or the aggregating expression level to the respective constituent entities. That doesn’t stop by delineating the primary (i.e. vertical) relationships. The two kinds of relationship can co-exist. The report does say the scope for traditional cataloging has been too vague on whole-part relationships, and its own scope is only on the many-to-many relationships of expressions to manifestations. But by putting all the pieces together one can now diagram the relationships out more fully, and this can be captured in systems. Quote.. As for the Group 1 entities, libraries for many years have recognized aggregates of content and aggregates of physical carriers. We know these aggregates through the specific items we collect for our libraries, just as we know the works and expressions through the manifestations and specific items that embody those works and expressions. However, sometimes a library may choose to treat an aggregate entity as an integral unit and ignore the individual components in the bibliographic description. The FRBR conceptual model allows for these different treatments. Specific applications of FRBR for specific systems or business rules may choose to either declare/identify/describe the specific component entities or ignore them. In other words, we may choose to recognize a whole entity as an integral unit (e.g., a work treated as one unit although it may consist of the collaborative work of several creators), or we may choose to recognize the whole entity and its component parts (e.g., an aggregate work/whole, such as a trilogy of stories, with the parts being the component works, that is, each of the individual stories in the trilogy) in a whole/part relationship. In applications we may choose to specifically identify the component entities (with such devices as separate bibliographic records or analytics of individual works/expressions or listings of the components in a contents note or analytical added entries), or not (such as not specifically identifying the illustrations to a text or a preface
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" : Because there are many-to-many relationships that are horizontal as well as the many-to-many primary relationship unique to expressions and manifestations. For the case of the aggregating expression, going over it again ... An expression may be embodied in a manifestation. That expression could be accompanied by other expressions embodied in the same manifestation. That's a vertical many-to-one scenario-- expression(s) to manifestation. One doesn't need a special whole/part relationship for this, because the primary relationship (a vertical relationship) establishes this. The resulting aggregating expression has whole-part relationships to each constituent expression. That's a horizontal many-to-one scenario. Following this logic, I doubt there would be a manifestation/manifestation whole/part, except in perhaps a "bound with" situation. Do you agree? And it also seems that in your scenario, aggregates link whole/part between expressions but not between works? Is there a reason why they would not link at the work? I did a very ugly diagram of this... http://kcoyle.net/temp/frbragg.pdf If it's too ugly I can try a do-over. kc That aggregating expression also has vertical relationship to the manifestation. It could have another vertical relationship to another manifestation (an e-resource version of a print publication for example). The two types of relationships (horizontal and vertical) are like check-off lists for all the possible bibliographic relationships. Going further ... That original single expression may also have been published in a >>different set<< of expressions in another manifestation (creating a different aggregating expression). That original expression may have other structural or content relationships to yet other expressions (different horizontal relationships, such as 'adaptation of' or 'revised as' or 'translation of'). More many-to-many relationships are being fulfilled. That original expression could also be published in different manifestations (different vertical relationships -- now we're in that vertical many-to-many territory). But that original expression will only ever "realize" one and only work (and inherit its attributes). So horizontally and vertically, that original expression can have multiple relationships, except upwards to the one work that it realizes. From a display point of view, there are a lot of variables to consider. In browse lists currently, analytical title entries are confusing. In author browses, name-title headings juxtapose with the titles found under the author's name. Title browses can be a bit better, but the nature of the relationship of one title to another is not clear until each record is examined in more detail. Keyword searches will bring up brief record displays where the analytical titles in the Content notes or added entries are obscured. The LibraryThing approach is what I favor -- have a web page for each entity, and populate that web page with all the attributes and relationships associated with that entity. If it's the work, show the available expressions (and manifestations), but also show the horizontal structural and content relationships, so one can navigate both vertically and horizontally. There is some redundancy in navigating horizontally to the aggregating work and then down to the same manifestation, but then one would be able to see all the other associated works in the aggregating work, and explore outwards from them. Smarter systems may even highlight these kinds of whole-part and vertical relationships, and perhaps go beyond LibraryThing by tackling manifestation and item records. In my system, availability information at the item level already influences screen display-- the user is directed to the available copies first. Our NoveList widget alerts users to similar titles based upon presence in the catalog (this is at the manifestation level). If all the FRBR relationships were present, the system could alert the presence of associated works at the highest level and direct users to particular combinations of relationships, with appropriate deduplication. (Some of the FRBR-lite utilities like LibraryThing for Libraries already do some of this). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas quoted: >"Multipart item. A monograph complete, or intended to be completed, in a fi= >nite number of separate parts. The separate parts may or may not be numbere= >d." > >"Serial. A continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, us= >ually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion." Whether a series is a monographic series or mutlipart item is at best a guess. As I said, what is a serial in one library is a series in another. What is coded as multipart item may be a standing order and checked in as a serial. When a serial or series ceases (as all do) is it then a multipart item? I think not. If issued in successive parts, whether an expected end is stated or not (e.g., the 50 states of the US, the members of the UN, X number or world faiths), the aggregate should be treated as a series in part records, and established follow serial main entry rules. The distinction does not reflect bibliographic reality, nor patron needs and expectations. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
>But the horizontal whole/part does exist. As I've said earlier, there seems to me to be a fallacy in calling the whole/part relationship horizontal, particularly for secondary parts such as a preface, a bibliography, illustrations or an index, which may be in one manifestation but not in another. Diagonal? We are doing records for those parts (although I question the value of some of them). If the parts have their own URLs, a separate record is required in distributing through ebrary (only one 856 allowed per record). Some electronic publishers wish to offer mix and match packages; but of what use is an index apart from what it indexes? A paper given at a continuing education symposia, or the portion of a website, hardly seem to me to have a horizontal relationship to the proceedings or the website as a whole. (I do see the value of those records.) Other editions and translations do seem horizontal. To me that term implies equality. But we seem to be in an "Alice in Wonderland" world, in which words mean what we say they mean. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle > Sent: January 9, 2012 1:42 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > > Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" : > > > > The confusion seems to arise from the unique "many-to-many" > > relationship of the expression to the manifestation. As soon as the > > "many" kicks in for multiple expressions embodied in one > > manifestation, the notion of the structural relationship of "parts" > > unfortunately also kick in, but it shouldn't be necessary to invent > > some new vertical whole-part relationship when this happens, as this > > would convey the same information as the existing primary > > relationship. > > But the horizontal whole/part does exist. If the vertical > relationships are enough to convey that, why does FRBR/RDA have the > horizontal parts and what were they intended for? Maybe THAT's the > source of the confusion. > Because there are many-to-many relationships that are horizontal as well as the many-to-many primary relationship unique to expressions and manifestations. For the case of the aggregating expression, going over it again ... An expression may be embodied in a manifestation. That expression could be accompanied by other expressions embodied in the same manifestation. That's a vertical many-to-one scenario-- expression(s) to manifestation. One doesn't need a special whole/part relationship for this, because the primary relationship (a vertical relationship) establishes this. The resulting aggregating expression has whole-part relationships to each constituent expression. That's a horizontal many-to-one scenario. That aggregating expression also has vertical relationship to the manifestation. It could have another vertical relationship to another manifestation (an e-resource version of a print publication for example). The two types of relationships (horizontal and vertical) are like check-off lists for all the possible bibliographic relationships. Going further ... That original single expression may also have been published in a >>different set<< of expressions in another manifestation (creating a different aggregating expression). That original expression may have other structural or content relationships to yet other expressions (different horizontal relationships, such as 'adaptation of' or 'revised as' or 'translation of'). More many-to-many relationships are being fulfilled. That original expression could also be published in different manifestations (different vertical relationships -- now we're in that vertical many-to-many territory). But that original expression will only ever "realize" one and only work (and inherit its attributes). So horizontally and vertically, that original expression can have multiple relationships, except upwards to the one work that it realizes. From a display point of view, there are a lot of variables to consider. In browse lists currently, analytical title entries are confusing. In author browses, name-title headings juxtapose with the titles found under the author's name. Title browses can be a bit better, but the nature of the relationship of one title to another is not clear until each record is examined in more detail. Keyword searches will bring up brief record displays where the analytical titles in the Content notes or added entries are obscured. The LibraryThing approach is what I favor -- have a web page for each entity, and populate that web page with all the attributes and relationships associated with that entity. If it's the work, show the available expressions (and manifestations), but also show the horizontal structural and content relationships, so one can navigate both vertically and horizontally. There is some redundancy in navigating horizontally to the aggregating work and then down to the same manifestation, but then one would be able to see all the other associated works in the aggregating work, and explore outwards from them. Smarter systems may even highlight these kinds of whole-part and vertical relationships, and perhaps go beyond LibraryThing by tackling manifestation and item records. In my system, availability information at the item level already influences screen display-- the user is directed to the available copies first. Our NoveList widget alerts users to similar titles based upon presence in the catalog (this is at the manifestation level). If all the FRBR relationships were present, the system could alert the presence of associated works at the highest level and direct users to particular combinations of relationships, with appropriate deduplication. (Some of the FRBR-lite utilities like LibraryThing for Libraries already do some of this). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" : The confusion seems to arise from the unique "many-to-many" relationship of the expression to the manifestation. As soon as the "many" kicks in for multiple expressions embodied in one manifestation, the notion of the structural relationship of "parts" unfortunately also kick in, but it shouldn't be necessary to invent some new vertical whole-part relationship when this happens, as this would convey the same information as the existing primary relationship. But the horizontal whole/part does exist. If the vertical relationships are enough to convey that, why does FRBR/RDA have the horizontal parts and what were they intended for? Maybe THAT's the source of the confusion. kc The "many-to-many" set also includes a "many-to-one" notion-- multiple phantom manifestations don't need to be created for an aggregating expression. Over time, each expression, and even the aggregating expression, could be found in other manifestations over time, fulfilling the "many-to-many" extent of the relationships, but the "many-to-one" is valid for the specific examples discussed. All of the established relationships are valid -- expression to aggregating expression, work to aggregating work, expression(s) to manifestation. There are even a range of manifestation-to-manifestation relationships as well, including whole-part ("bound with" is an item-to-item relationship though). Numerous existing conventions pick up on one or the other relationship, or collapse several together, and one might be able to infer all the relationships from this information. Displays are a problem, because the relationships may not be explicitly mapped behind the scenes for the most flexible display manipulation. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Casey A Mullin : (I'm ignoring the aggregate w/e here, as it's not useful to identify) Actually, we might need it. m1 (novel published with preface) Title proper: Bend sinister embodies e1 (novel in English) realizes w1 Preferred title: Bend sinister embodies e2 (preface in English) realizes w2 Preferred title: [Title given or devised title] This doesn't seem devilish to me at all. Am I missing something? Casey, What will you display to the user? Assume that display has to be algorithmic (it's going to be done by dumb machines), so you have to follow rules for display (e.g. always display work title And Expression title And Manifestation title... or whatever you think your rules will be.) Create those rules, and display something like: 1. Voyna i Mir (Work title) Title of expression: War and Peace Manifestation title: War and Peace, by Tolstoy, with an essay by Jane Smith. date: 2007 includes 2. Essay by Jane Smith, Those crazy Russians. 1958. 3. (separate case but in the same database) work title: Tolstoy's War and Peace (a book about the work) creator: Professor John Expression title: Tolsoy's War and Peace Manifestation title: Tolstoy's War and Peace date: 2008 *** I think you are assuming that the display will be: Work title: Expression title: Manifestation title: So in the case of the essay in the book, its Work title would substitute for the Manifestation title. I'm not convinced that's a valid assumption, but it's worth trying out. (btw, although YOU might not create an expression title that is the same as the work title, unless we discover that that is illegal in FRBR then you cannot assume that someone has not done it.) kc Does this clarify what I'm getting at, or are we still talking past each other? ;) Casey -- 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 -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
>From AACR2 Glossary: "Multipart item. A monograph complete, or intended to be completed, in a finite number of separate parts. The separate parts may or may not be numbered." "Serial. A continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, usually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion." In series authority records, 008/12 has the values for "monographic series" vs. "multipart item". If the series is coded for multipart item, the heading is formulated under main entry rules for monographs Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library > -Original Message- > From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] > Sent: January 9, 2012 1:04 PM > To: Brenndorfer, Thomas > Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > > > Thomas said: > > >Yet a finite resource is not a serial-- it's a multipart monograph. The same > goes for finite multi-part series -- they are treated as monographs, and get > the same main entry treatment as monographs. A multi-part series in > one library might be a multi-part monograph in another. > > All resources are finite. Not according to AACR2. >From AACR2 Glossary: "Multipart item. A monograph complete, or intended to be completed, in a finite number of separate parts. The separate parts may or may not be numbered." "Serial. A continuing resource issued in a succession of discrete parts, usually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion." In series authority records, 008/12 has the values for "monographic series" vs. "multipart item". If the series is coded for multipart item, the heading is formulated under main entry rules for monographs. Example from MARC for multipart item series, 008/12=b : b - Multipart item 1XX field contains an established heading for a collective title that applies to a multipart monographic publication. 008/12 b 008/16 a [heading may be used as a series added entry] 100 1#$aGreaves, Margaret.$tLittle box of ballet stories Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas said: >Yet a finite resource is not a serial-- it's a multipart monograph. The same >goes for finite multi-part series -- they are treated as monographs, and get >the same main entry treatment as monographs. A multi-part series in one library might be a multi-part monograph in another. All resources are finite. Any serial may cease publishing at any time. Our catalogues contains many dead serials. Shall we convert them to monograph records? __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
"kc: Nothing devilish at all in MARC: you add a 7xx for it. It's only devilish in a FRBR-based environment. " And here's where our perspectives differ. I'm not talking about just adding an analytic for a preface. That's easy. I'm talking about treating a novel published with a preface as an aggregate Work with two components, and trying to account for all three in MARC. THAT'S devilish. In a linked-data environment, it seems much more straight-forward, as any work/expression related to a manifestation would be given equal weighting, and would be related using the same exact method (as opposed to the main-/added-entry dichotomy in MARC). "kc: Exactly. So how to you do this? that's the question we are asking. A title proper can only be defined within a FRBR manifestation entity. In this case, what does your FRBR manifestation contain, given that the the part exists physically only within that aggregate manifestation? You would end up with two manifestation entities for the same physical manifestation: one with the title proper of the part, and one for the actual item in hand. Honestly, I'd like to see what this looks like. It's ok for it to be a bit sketchy, but use, if you can, the RDA properties (from http://rdvocab.info). That would really help! (You don't need to use the URIs -- the element names will be fine.) " There's no need for a second manifestation. We only have one. "Title proper" is a manifestation attribute, but "Preferred title" is a work attribute, and you can relate as many works as you need. How's this... (I'm ignoring the aggregate w/e here, as it's not useful to identify) m1 (novel published with preface) Title proper: Bend sinister embodies e1 (novel in English) realizes w1 Preferred title: Bend sinister embodies e2 (preface in English) realizes w2 Preferred title: [Title given or devised title] This doesn't seem devilish to me at all. Am I missing something? Does this clarify what I'm getting at, or are we still talking past each other? ;) Casey -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind > Sent: January 9, 2012 11:31 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > > On 1/9/2012 11:23 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > > The difficulty is that there appears to be a desire to create a > > whole/part from, say, a Manifestation to an Expression, which does not > > seem to be valid in the FRBR model, even though it is conceptually > > logical. > > I'm not sure it's conceptually logical, but it may be, I'm getting > confused thinking about it, I admit. (I say with confidence it's not > conceptually logical to say that an M of a particular piece is > "contained in" a WORK. But it may be conceptually logically to say it's > contained in particular Expression, I'm not sure. ) The confusion seems to arise from the unique "many-to-many" relationship of the expression to the manifestation. As soon as the "many" kicks in for multiple expressions embodied in one manifestation, the notion of the structural relationship of "parts" unfortunately also kick in, but it shouldn't be necessary to invent some new vertical whole-part relationship when this happens, as this would convey the same information as the existing primary relationship. The "many-to-many" set also includes a "many-to-one" notion-- multiple phantom manifestations don't need to be created for an aggregating expression. Over time, each expression, and even the aggregating expression, could be found in other manifestations over time, fulfilling the "many-to-many" extent of the relationships, but the "many-to-one" is valid for the specific examples discussed. All of the established relationships are valid -- expression to aggregating expression, work to aggregating work, expression(s) to manifestation. There are even a range of manifestation-to-manifestation relationships as well, including whole-part ("bound with" is an item-to-item relationship though). Numerous existing conventions pick up on one or the other relationship, or collapse several together, and one might be able to infer all the relationships from this information. Displays are a problem, because the relationships may not be explicitly mapped behind the scenes for the most flexible display manipulation. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Casey A Mullin : [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. kc: Right, none of what we're talking about relates to parts or secondary works that are not identified as such in the cataloging. We are concerned about what to do if you *do* wish to bring them out in the description. 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. kc: Nothing devilish at all in MARC: you add a 7xx for it. It's only devilish in a FRBR-based environment. [Hide Quoted Text] As for Karen's other question: 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? 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. kc: Exactly. So how to you do this? that's the question we are asking. A title proper can only be defined within a FRBR manifestation entity. In this case, what does your FRBR manifestation contain, given that the the part exists physically only within that aggregate manifestation? You would end up with two manifestation entities for the same physical manifestation: one with the title proper of the part, and one for the actual item in hand. Honestly, I'd like to see what this looks like. It's ok for it to be a bit sketchy, but use, if you can, the RDA properties (from http://rdvocab.info). That would really help! (You don't need to use the URIs -- the element names will be fine.) kc
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Jonathan Rochkind : I think you need to just create an identifier for the manifestation or expression that doesn't yet exist (if it doesn't), and make the relationship M-M to E-E. The 'extra' M or E you created doens't need to have any other metadata recorded about it -- just it's M/E relationship, and the whole/part relationship you want to record. I need to diagram this. So now you have a WE with an empty M. Let's say W title: Some Essay author: John Smith E (expresses that W) language: English M1 (empty) --> part of -- M2 M3 title: Some Essay by John Smith (this one is stand-alone) M2 title: Essays on whatever When someone retrieves that W using the title, the system would display all of the M1-3 information. It would find no M1 title, but would display the relevant data from M2, the containing item. (Bonus question: could M3 ever be part of another M? Given that M's are publications, I would say "no." An M can include E's, but not other M's, except perhaps in the case of "bound with.") I don't think that M1 would ever be filled in. That manifestation of the essay is in fact non-existent as a stand-alone entity. I believe this is exactly the kind of thing that Heilbrun is attempting to structure with her models, only her models create a "part" at a work and expression level that are expressly parts. However, they are equivalent to the initial W and E here, their coding as parts is just more specific. But now the 'extra' M or E is identified in case someone later DOES want to assert things about it. Are there problems with this approach? Whether or not M/E 'contained in' relationships might conceivably be conceptually logical, a model is just a model, in the end. If the FRBR model says make 'contained in' relatinoships only M-M or E-E (or conceivably W-W) -- what are the actual practical or theoretical problems, if any, of just doing so, creating identifiers for intermediate M's or E's as neccesary? I think there are some benefits to this approach, in clarity and parsimony. I honestly can't think it through far enough to know if this creates problems in a large data store. We keep postulating individual "records" while the fact is that this will take place on a catalog-level scale. That's the part that's hard to think through. but I think you've got a testable hypothesis, Jonathan. kc Jonathan If you want to say that Essay1 is a part of ManifestationX, and you want the whole/part aspect to be clear, that is different from a structural relationship using "embodied." For this to be a manifestation-to-manifestation whole/part, then you need a manifestation for Essay1. But say there isn't a separate manifestation for Essay1, and it doesn't seem to make sense to say that Essay1 in ManifestationX is a part of ManifestationX. What one seems to want to be able to say is that the Expression of Essay1 is manifested in ManifestationX as a *part* of ManifestationX. If you can see a way out of this one, shout it out! kc - Barbara Tillett -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" : Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be handled with a placefolder at the expression level. Yes, but what is the relationship? "to" isn't a valid relationship. As I read both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to be between Manifestations. I don't see how you can have a whole/part from a Manifestation to an Expression. Or you can simply have Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression B Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps it is sufficient. The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams) 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 Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data. kc Of course there will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it can be added. This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry, and we felt this was a workable approach that enables pra
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
[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: 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? 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 : 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 : 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 o
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] > Sent: January 9, 2012 11:46 AM > To: Brenndorfer, Thomas > Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > > > Thomas said: > > >One of the first epiphanies I had when learning to catalog was in > >realizing that there are no specific rules for main entry for series > > The same rules should apply to both series and serials, because what > is a series in one library is a serial in another. > Yet a finite resource is not a serial-- it's a multipart monograph. The same goes for finite multi-part series -- they are treated as monographs, and get the same main entry treatment as monographs. A multi-part series in one library might be a multi-part monograph in another. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas said: >One of the first epiphanies I had when learning to catalog was in >realizing that there are no specific rules for main entry for series The same rules should apply to both series and serials, because what is a series in one library is a serial in another. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
On 1/9/2012 11:23 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: The difficulty is that there appears to be a desire to create a whole/part from, say, a Manifestation to an Expression, which does not seem to be valid in the FRBR model, even though it is conceptually logical. I'm not sure it's conceptually logical, but it may be, I'm getting confused thinking about it, I admit. (I say with confidence it's not conceptually logical to say that an M of a particular piece is "contained in" a WORK. But it may be conceptually logically to say it's contained in particular Expression, I'm not sure. ) I think you need to just create an identifier for the manifestation or expression that doesn't yet exist (if it doesn't), and make the relationship M-M to E-E. The 'extra' M or E you created doens't need to have any other metadata recorded about it -- just it's M/E relationship, and the whole/part relationship you want to record. But now the 'extra' M or E is identified in case someone later DOES want to assert things about it. Are there problems with this approach? Whether or not M/E 'contained in' relationships might conceivably be conceptually logical, a model is just a model, in the end. If the FRBR model says make 'contained in' relatinoships only M-M or E-E (or conceivably W-W) -- what are the actual practical or theoretical problems, if any, of just doing so, creating identifiers for intermediate M's or E's as neccesary? I think there are some benefits to this approach, in clarity and parsimony. Jonathan If you want to say that Essay1 is a part of ManifestationX, and you want the whole/part aspect to be clear, that is different from a structural relationship using "embodied." For this to be a manifestation-to-manifestation whole/part, then you need a manifestation for Essay1. But say there isn't a separate manifestation for Essay1, and it doesn't seem to make sense to say that Essay1 in ManifestationX is a part of ManifestationX. What one seems to want to be able to say is that the Expression of Essay1 is manifested in ManifestationX as a *part* of ManifestationX. If you can see a way out of this one, shout it out! kc - Barbara Tillett -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" : Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be handled with a placefolder at the expression level. Yes, but what is the relationship? "to" isn't a valid relationship. As I read both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to be between Manifestations. I don't see how you can have a whole/part from a Manifestation to an Expression. Or you can simply have Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression B Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps it is sufficient. The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams) 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 Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data. kc Of course there will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it can be added. This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry, and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while allowing the structure to be complete in systems. As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is covered in RDA. Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and parts will depend on systems. You may be interested in seeing a training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter. It would "show" you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and FRBR. - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LA
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" : FRBR includes whole/part relationships for all of the Group 1 entities (see 5.3.1.1 - work level 5.3.2.1 - expression level 5.3.4.1 - manifesation level 5.3.6.1 - item level. The relationships between the group 1 entities are the *inherent relationships (i.e., is realized through/realizes or expresses, is embodied in/embodies, is exemplified by/exemplifies), not the *structural relationships like whole/part, accompanying, sequential, and not the *content relationships like equivalent, derivative, and descriptive. Yes, I think we've covered that in our discussion. There does seem to be some confusion about the nature of the structural relationships, which some folks seem to perceive as having a whole/part nature -- perhaps because of the terminology "embodied". It would be good to clarify what that "embodied" means. The difficulty is that there appears to be a desire to create a whole/part from, say, a Manifestation to an Expression, which does not seem to be valid in the FRBR model, even though it is conceptually logical. If you want to say that Essay1 is a part of ManifestationX, and you want the whole/part aspect to be clear, that is different from a structural relationship using "embodied." For this to be a manifestation-to-manifestation whole/part, then you need a manifestation for Essay1. But say there isn't a separate manifestation for Essay1, and it doesn't seem to make sense to say that Essay1 in ManifestationX is a part of ManifestationX. What one seems to want to be able to say is that the Expression of Essay1 is manifested in ManifestationX as a *part* of ManifestationX. If you can see a way out of this one, shout it out! kc - Barbara Tillett -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" : Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be handled with a placefolder at the expression level. Yes, but what is the relationship? "to" isn't a valid relationship. As I read both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to be between Manifestations. I don't see how you can have a whole/part from a Manifestation to an Expression. Or you can simply have Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression B Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps it is sufficient. The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams) 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 Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data. kc Of course there will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it can be added. This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry, and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while allowing the structure to be complete in systems. As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is covered in RDA. Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and parts will depend on systems. You may be interested in seeing a training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter. It would "show" you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and FRBR. - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting JOHN C ATTIG : - Original Message - | Karen said: | >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing | >similar to the MARC 505. Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of the parts of the r
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle > Sent: January 9, 2012 10:28 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > > Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" : > > If we want a collective entity related to > > individual entities, then we will make one. But in the process of > > doing so (from my memory of a database course), it's good to avoid > > unnecessary duplication and redundancy, as this effects the > > efficiency of systems built out of the data model. > > This is the *theory* of databases, but the practice varies. Most > actual databases are designed with redundancy that is necessary for > efficient retrieval and display. A theoretically efficient data model > is not necessary a system that serves the needs of users. > We were shown examples of unnecessary duplication. The negatives were practical issues such as excessive data entry complexity, and excessive CPU requirements. The enduser would be largely oblivious to this, other than in perhaps waiting longer for new features to be added, since new features might mean undoing all the unnecessary duplication and rebuilding from scratch. A good data model from the start is what's needed, and it needs to follow its own logic. What gets prioritized for display is a separate issue, as any enduser at any point in time may only be interested in a subset of the available data. But if that data is not logically connected behind the scenes then the enduser is potentially and needlessly underserved. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
FRBR includes whole/part relationships for all of the Group 1 entities (see 5.3.1.1 - work level 5.3.2.1 - expression level 5.3.4.1 - manifesation level 5.3.6.1 - item level. The relationships between the group 1 entities are the *inherent relationships (i.e., is realized through/realizes or expresses, is embodied in/embodies, is exemplified by/exemplifies), not the *structural relationships like whole/part, accompanying, sequential, and not the *content relationships like equivalent, derivative, and descriptive. - Barbara Tillett -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:03 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" : > Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be > handled with a placefolder at the expression level. Yes, but what is the relationship? "to" isn't a valid relationship. As I read both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to be between Manifestations. I don't see how you can have a whole/part from a Manifestation to an Expression. Or you can simply have Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression B Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps it is sufficient. The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams) 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 Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data. kc Of course there > will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not > to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it > can be added. This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon > Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry, > and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while > allowing the structure to be complete in systems. > > As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is > covered in RDA. Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with > MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and > parts will depend on systems. You may be interested in seeing a > training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard > Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully > demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can > show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter. It would "show" > you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and > FRBR. > - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion) > > -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and > Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR > Working Group on Aggregates > > Quoting JOHN C ATTIG : > >> - Original Message - >> >> | Karen said: >> >> | >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing >> | >similar to the MARC 505. >> >> Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are >> considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a >> structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of >> the parts of the resource. >> >> If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit, >> you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the >> examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you >> will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator >> "Contains" used as a caption. > > Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data > creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question > is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties? > > RDA: http://rdvocab.info/ > FRBR: http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html > > John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In that I > am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore, nothing that > is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It might seem the > same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data definitions that
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" : If we want a collective entity related to individual entities, then we will make one. But in the process of doing so (from my memory of a database course), it's good to avoid unnecessary duplication and redundancy, as this effects the efficiency of systems built out of the data model. This is the *theory* of databases, but the practice varies. Most actual databases are designed with redundancy that is necessary for efficient retrieval and display. A theoretically efficient data model is not necessary a system that serves the needs of users. My concern about the theoretical model of FRBR is that in practice it will be horribly inefficient for user services. So far our discussions of FRBR are all about getting the data *in* but very little about using the data for retrieval and display. The users seem to be entirely missing from this discussion. If the library data cannot provide what LibraryThing does (and with reasonable response time), then I can assure you that we've missed the user view and have lost the users. Shouldn't we really be discussing what we want to provide for users? kc Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller > Sent: January 9, 2012 9:43 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > .. > > Note that there is no line connecting the aggregating work or the > aggregating expression with the individual works and expressions. I > don't think that these lines were merely left out (perhaps to make the > diagram easier to read), but that they really aren't there at all. No, the scope of the report emphasized the primary relationships, but the nature of the entities cover what is already covered by other relationships, such as existing whole-part relationships. There are already many conventions for situations when individual entities interact with collective entities, and they are still valid even when primary relationships are explored and enumerated. This quote from the report shows that all the common situations for collections within a single resource apply to the analysis of aggregating expressions: "A distinctive characteristic of collections is that the individual works are usually similar in type and/or genre such as a collection of novels by a particular author, songs by a particular artist, or an anthology of a genre of poetry." http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf I think this also gets at the earlier discussion of how entities "exist." Entities are only conventions that we use for whatever purposes we need. If we want a collective entity related to individual entities, then we will make one. But in the process of doing so (from my memory of a database course), it's good to avoid unnecessary duplication and redundancy, as this effects the efficiency of systems built out of the data model. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Bernhard Eversberg : Furthermore, others have already passed us by, inventing devices that do the job we expect work records to do, and not in very complicated ways either: http://www.librarything.com/work/1386651 note their canonical title, original title, ... Librarything has done a great job of gathering information of interest to readers, including names of characters, etc. There is less emphasis in LT on describing manifestations than in library cataloging, and I believe this is why they have been free to emphasize works. LT isn't a strict inventory and does not need to distinguish clearly between two similar but not exactly the same manifestations. The manifestations that users add in their personal libraries are merely fodder for creating the work information. In at least some cases the manifestations chosen by LT users are not the exact ones on the user's shelf (and I know this from personal experience) because the underlying goal is to record the work, not the physical object. I would said that LT is what readers are interested in, and library cataloging is what libraries think libraries (and a very few scholars) need. Library cataloging is still primarily describing a manifestation, which this recent discussion is proof of. kc B.Eversberg -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas Brenndorfer wrote: This problem also appears in the use of 655 genre/form headings. A GSAFD genre/form heading like "Short stories" (despite the plural form) is applied to an "individual work" -- in effect, a single short story. A collection of short stories would get the 650 heading, "Short stories" -- "Here are entered collections of stories" as the LC authority record emphatically indicates. There are also some existing lurking effects of aggregating expressions in RDA. The authorized access point for compilations of works are dependent on whether there is a single creator or not. Reading Thomas' mail, it occurred to me that all of us quite naturally think of _aggregate_ works and _aggregate_ expressions, when discussing the matter, and not of _aggregating_ works and _aggregating_ expressions as the Working Group does. It took me some time (and some prompting by a German colleague, Thomas Berger) to work out that this is not just a matter of fuzzy terminology but in fact a crucial difference. The Working Group deliberately uses "aggregate" only in connection to manifestations, but "aggregating" when they talk about works and expressions. The reason seems to be that the aggregating work (and, consequently, the aggregating expression) does not stand for the sum of the things combined, but rather for the process of combining things. Remember the definition: "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 find this very hard to understand. Perhaps we could envision it as e.g. first drawing a number of boxes on a piece of paper (symbolizing the individual works) and then drawing a line around these boxes. An _aggregate_ work now would mean "the whole of the area surrounded by the line (including this line)". An _aggregating_ work, on the other hand, would mean only the line, but not the area surrounded by it. In order to grasp the difference between the aggregating work and the aggregating expression, it could perhaps be put thus: The aggregating work is the idea of drawing the line around the boces, and the aggregating expression is the actual drawing of it. I find this picture completely counterintuitive, but it seems to be in accordance with the general model shown on p. 5 of the report: http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf Note that there is no line connecting the aggregating work or the aggregating expression with the individual works and expressions. I don't think that these lines were merely left out (perhaps to make the diagram easier to read), but that they really aren't there at all. The only point where the aggregating work (via its expression) and the individual works (via their expressions) get into contact which each other is the manifestation (which is then, consequently, not called "aggregating" but "aggregate"). So, the report of the Working Group (at least in the main body of the text; an alternative is hinted at in Appendix B) does very decidedly see the aggregating work not as the sum of its parts (with some additional factor of aggregating) but as something which is quite apart from the individual parts. To put it strongly, the aggregating work doesn't have anything to do with the individual works - apart from the fact that its expression is embodied in the same manifestation as those of the individual works. And that's why I don't think that such an aggregating work could inherit an attribute like "novel" from the individual works. (If my interpretation is wrong, could some member of the Working Group please point this out?) One point that needs to be highlighted is that the report on aggregates specify the one unique relationship in FRBR-- the Expression-to-Manifestation relationship is the only "many-to-many" relationship in FRBR. All other relationships are "one-to-many" -- a work can have multiple expressions, but an expression can realize only one work. Yes, they do stress this, and formally, their model is indeed within the boundaries of FRBR. I'd still say (as I pointed out in my paper) that it is stretching the FRBR model a lot to have expressions of two very different kinds (of individual works and of a rather elusive aggregating work) embodied side by side in the same manifestation. As already noted, my alternative model would require some change here, namely that it whould have to be possible for an expression to realize one individual work and the corresponding part of an aggregate work at the same time. I think that such an amendment would be justified. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stutt
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Heidrun - You may have seen some of my presentations about FRBR that explain this "point of view" approach to show that the theoretical, conceptual model is indeed describing what we already have as entities since the beginning of catalogs and bibliographic information (e.g., in the British Museum printed book catalog, in LC's OPAC, in linked data environments, etc.). As for your alternative: 1. Naming the parts - by having the relationship/link to the whole, you alleviate the necessity of having to provide a "title" for the parts that includes the title of the whole. There may continue to be a need for a default display form to name the work, but I hope we can eventually get away from the need for a "heading" or "authorized access point" (other than a default used for displays), so the display context could govern what additions are needed for naming an entity. Of course, if the title of the part coincidentally does include the title of the whole, then that should be given as found. For display purposes both titles (whole and part) can be displayed when needed depending on the context. 2. Yes, and FRBR already provides for the whole/part relationships and the inherent relationships as you describe. - Barbara Tillett -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 5:37 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Bernhard Eversberg wrote: > > You may contemplate any number of models that go beyond this, as this > thread amply testifies, but I seriously doubt any such approach will > be an economic use of resources. Economy dictates that we use what we > have more extensively and in better ways. > Sure, it is nice to have a complete theory, as it is fine to have a > Theory of Everything for the elementary particles, but that's largely > for the textbooks! I think Bernhard is absolutely right in stressing that a whole lot of information is already there and should be made better use of (actually that has been one of my own mantras for some years now). But I still believe it would be more than just "nice" to have a sound underlying theoretical framework. This may, of course, only be due to my being a lecturer and therefore a potential writer of textbooks... In my dreams the theoretical framework would not be some highbrow model, completely separate from real life cataloging, but rather something that would really help with cataloging, give us ideas as how to present our existing data, open up new ways of using them, and giving hints to possible improvements and further developments. Indeed quite often we may find that something which looks "new" and frighteningly difficult in the theoretical model may turn out to be something for which a real life equivalent is already there in actual cataloging. So it may often turn out that people are, in fact, familiar with it already, but just haven't thought of it in that way. But making us aware of that would (or at least, could) be more than simple giving a modern and technical sounding name to something well-known. It might make us view it in a new, wider context. I'm not sure whether I managed to make myself clear... For those of you, who are still following the details of modeling aggregates: I've done some more thinking on my "alternative model" and now propose two small additions to it. 1. The title of the "part works" should be different from the title of the corresponding individual work, and include the title of the aggregate work. E.g. the title of a "part work" could be something like "Pride and prejudice (Best loved novels)". This would make it possible to distinguish easily both between the individual work and the corresponding "part work" and also between several "part works" corresponding to the same individual work, but belonging to different aggregate works. 2. There should be a relationship between an individual work and its corresponding "part work". For want of a better name let's call it an "individual/aggregate relationship" (the definition would roughly be: the relationship between an individual work and the corresponding work as part of an aggregate work). This would make it possible to start with the aggregate work, go to one of its parts and, from there, directly to the corresponding individual work, which has links to _all_ expressions (whereas the "part work" only has links to the expressions really used in the aggregate work). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Bernhard Eversberg wrote: You may contemplate any number of models that go beyond this, as this thread amply testifies, but I seriously doubt any such approach will be an economic use of resources. Economy dictates that we use what we have more extensively and in better ways. Sure, it is nice to have a complete theory, as it is fine to have a Theory of Everything for the elementary particles, but that's largely for the textbooks! I think Bernhard is absolutely right in stressing that a whole lot of information is already there and should be made better use of (actually that has been one of my own mantras for some years now). But I still believe it would be more than just "nice" to have a sound underlying theoretical framework. This may, of course, only be due to my being a lecturer and therefore a potential writer of textbooks... In my dreams the theoretical framework would not be some highbrow model, completely separate from real life cataloging, but rather something that would really help with cataloging, give us ideas as how to present our existing data, open up new ways of using them, and giving hints to possible improvements and further developments. Indeed quite often we may find that something which looks "new" and frighteningly difficult in the theoretical model may turn out to be something for which a real life equivalent is already there in actual cataloging. So it may often turn out that people are, in fact, familiar with it already, but just haven't thought of it in that way. But making us aware of that would (or at least, could) be more than simple giving a modern and technical sounding name to something well-known. It might make us view it in a new, wider context. I'm not sure whether I managed to make myself clear... For those of you, who are still following the details of modeling aggregates: I've done some more thinking on my "alternative model" and now propose two small additions to it. 1. The title of the "part works" should be different from the title of the corresponding individual work, and include the title of the aggregate work. E.g. the title of a "part work" could be something like "Pride and prejudice (Best loved novels)". This would make it possible to distinguish easily both between the individual work and the corresponding "part work" and also between several "part works" corresponding to the same individual work, but belonging to different aggregate works. 2. There should be a relationship between an individual work and its corresponding "part work". For want of a better name let's call it an "individual/aggregate relationship" (the definition would roughly be: the relationship between an individual work and the corresponding work as part of an aggregate work). This would make it possible to start with the aggregate work, go to one of its parts and, from there, directly to the corresponding individual work, which has links to _all_ expressions (whereas the "part work" only has links to the expressions really used in the aggregate work). Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
distinction has existed much longer, and should be observed. IMNSHO many music cataloguers continuing to code music genre headings as 650 (which we were required to do for one client) was a mistake, and will complicate flipping them to new forms. The 655 0 vs. 655 7 is distinction enough between LCSH and LCGFT. Music catalogers are still following LC's practice to put the genre and form in 650. That will change soon once music genre terms are created for LCGFT (in the next several years). Medium of performance terms are going to be put elsewhere in the new way that music will be cataloged. See the recent MARBI discussion paper 2011-DP05 at http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2011/2011-dp05.html and the 2012-01 proposal that came of that at http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/2012/2012-01.html. Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
08.01.2012 15:24, Heidrun Wiesenmüller: 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. ... ... The bottom line is: These things are far from obvious, and should have been addressed in the Final Report. Holy cow, what a productive weekend and thread this has become! Considering that the issues as such are not new at all, for example look at this 1998 paper for the Part-Whole relationship: http://www.allegro-c.de/formate/reusep.htm But back then, the impact of this was negligible. One must by now be very brave indeed to expect a workable and satisfying and timely result from the Framework Initiative, and a practicable post-MARC, fully FRBR-compliant data model in particular. On the other hand, work records need not be invented, modeled, specified, programmed, and then painstakingly inputted from scratch. They exist right now, and in large numbers. Here are two of them: Text work http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no97079452.html Motion picture work http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no97080965.html After all this to and fro, I tend to look at the authorized work title as much like a subject term. After all, names of persons and bodies are being used for creators and subject headings alike, why not work titles in the same way? In a 700, the name is augmented with numerous subfields that - potentially - allow for a strucured citation listing displayed under the person's name. And there are all those 700 $a $t entries already. Create a new indicator for the 700, saying "this is a reference to a work", add $0 for the identifier, add a few new subfields (use capital letters if running out of small ones) for language, edition, type of expression, genre, and whatever necessary for meaningful groupings of entries under the work title. And all of that will cover a lot, if not everything, that may be expected from work records, like linkings with editions and versions (if you want, expressions and manifestation). This method is all you need, I believe, to bring together what belongs together and display it in meaningful ways as well as allowing for meaningful navigation in online catalogs. AND it wouldn't be a lot of work to upgrade existing 700s and turn them into work headings. We might also have new fields 605 and 705 instead of a new indicator for the 600 and 700. Therein, use $a *and* $0 or just one of these, depending on whether or not an authority record is available. And the aggregations? Simply use its authorized title as work title, after cataloging the thing itself like any monographic publication as it's being done now. You may contemplate any number of models that go beyond this, as this thread amply testifies, but I seriously doubt any such approach will be an economic use of resources. Economy dictates that we use what we have more extensively and in better ways. Sure, it is nice to have a complete theory, as it is fine to have a Theory of Everything for the elementary particles, but that's largely for the textbooks! A few particles are so elusive and hard to nail down that they are of no practical use as in electronic devices, for instance, Furthermore, others have already passed us by, inventing devices that do the job we expect work records to do, and not in very complicated ways either: http://www.librarything.com/work/1386651 note their canonical title, original title, ... B.Eversberg
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas said: >A collection of short stories would get the 650 heading, "Short stories" ... In our shop, a collection of short stories would have that heading in a 655; only criticism of short stories would have that heading in 650. Having it in 650 would exclude it from a genre index. Many LCSH needed as genre headings are not yet established in LCGFT, and until quite recently, that list did not exist. The subject/genre distinction has existed much longer, and should be observed. IMNSHO many music cataloguers continuing to code music genre headings as 650 (which we were required to do for one client) was a mistake, and will complicate flipping them to new forms. The 655 0 vs. 655 7 is distinction enough between LCSH and LCGFT. RDA's subject heading section has not yet been written, but I hope the *is*/*about* distinction will be clear. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller [wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de] Sent: January-08-12 9:24 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates >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. This problem also appears in the use of 655 genre/form headings. A GSAFD genre/form heading like "Short stories" (despite the plural form) is applied to an "individual work" -- in effect, a single short story. A collection of short stories would get the 650 heading, "Short stories" -- "Here are entered collections of stories" as the LC authority record emphatically indicates. There are also some existing lurking effects of aggregating expressions in RDA. The authorized access point for compilations of works are dependent on whether there is a single creator or not. If there are works by different persons, then the authorized access point is made using only the preferred title for the work (effectively the aggregating work). A compilation of works (which logically also means there's an aggregating expression) by one creator has an authorized access point that incorporates the creator's name. There is also a manifestation element, "Mode of Issuance" (RDA 2.13), that has a value "multipart monograph" for when a manifestation is issued in two or more parts (simultaneously or successively). This implies a connection to situations when there are multiple carriers (such as kits), which has its own issue for mapping to related Expression-level Content Type elements [see earlier postings on connecting Content Types to respective Carrier Types]. There are other similar issues related to accompanying material and Related Manifestations, where 300$e, repeating 300's, and 505 can be applied. The various conventions for recording the "multi-part" nature of the individual manifestations don't go much beyond structured or unstructured descriptions. One of the resulting problems is that there is a lot of lumping going in catalog records. A multipart monograph can have multiple expressions (an aggregating expression), or multiple works in the form of a compilation (which mean there's also an aggregating expression), and multiple carriers that carry different parts of the aggregating expression. One point that needs to be highlighted is that the report on aggregates specify the one unique relationship in FRBR-- the Expression-to-Manifestation relationship is the only "many-to-many" relationship in FRBR. All other relationships are "one-to-many" -- a work can have multiple expressions, but an expression can realize only one work. An expression can appear in different manifestations, but, uniquely, a manifestation can embody multiple expressions. Things get complicated with multipart monographs, which can have their own mesh of related individual manfestations, each of which can embody one of the expressions of the aggregating expression of the overall multipart monograph. Generally, explicit relationships, whether primary (vertical) or horizontal get squashed in all this, and much is left to record in notes only. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod [m...@slc.bc.ca] Sent: January-08-12 11:53 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates >Moving to title main entry for series seems a good idea to me. A >series under author duplicates the main entry for the single issue, >and authors of series do change. One of the first epiphanies I had when learning to catalog was in realizing that there are no specific rules for main entry for series ... because ALL the main entry rules apply for series. If the series is a monographic series, then the main entry rules for serials apply. If the series is a multipart item, then the main entry rules for monographs (those consisting of more than one volume) apply. One can build a main entry-based catalog out of RDA. But the difference is that RDA allows that convention to arise from the elements, leaving room for other and newer conventions. RDA doesn't pre-empt decisions about output conventions, and this is done by following an element set approach, and where the underlying entities that have always been talked about are consistently abstracted, and where there is a thorough accounting of all the possible relationships between those entities. For example, series are defined in RDA as work-to-work relationships, specifically whole-part relationships, and even more precisely through reciprocal designators "in series" and "series contains". The encoding system (MARC, 8XX fields) and the flat-file main entry conventions (authorized access point using main entry rules for series heading) are separate constructs that can be built out of the underlying logic that RDA enumerates. RDA starts by saying what something actually is, and then the conventions to use follow from this. By doing this one can see much better the strengths and weaknesses of any convention or system-- past, present, and future. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
In article <4f093f5d.4070...@hdm-stuttgart.de>, you wrote: >Actually, the thing Mac and I disagree about (but haven't had time to go >into more deeply yet) is the question of main entry as such. Main entry under creator seems a tradition worth keeping: -in order to maintain consistency with scholarly citation (including returning to compiler main entry); -in order to colocate by author (particularly literary authors) in single entry bibliographies; -to maintain correlation between main entry and Cutter to colocate authors' works on the shelf of the same literary genre or on the same topic (apart from criticism and biography); -out of consideration for technology have not libraries, who will not have the linkages proposed to allow meaningful displays. Moving to title main entry for series seems a good idea to me. A series under author duplicates the main entry for the single issue, and authors of series do change. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
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 fr
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Karen Coyle wrote: 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. (...) 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. Good point. I think you're right that my "parts" also must by necessity be works (in the same sense that, say, "The fellowship of the ring" is a work in itself, which at the same time is placed in a whole/part relationship with "The lord of the rings"). So in the Nabokov example I don't have only three works (the two individual works plus the aggregate work, which has two parts), as I claimed before, but rather five works: the two individual works, the aggregate work and the two "part works". I know that having "W1" and "W: Part 1 of Aggregate Work" as two different boxes next to each other somehow looks redundant, but I still think this complexity is necessary. Let's look as some more diagrams which I have just drawn: http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/ (among the working papers again, called "Additional diagrams #2", or directly: http://tinyurl.com/6o2sh3k (sorry, it's more than 3 MB; next time I'll compress the graphics more). The new example illustrates the (fictitious) case of two "Selected works" editions of Jane Austen’s novels. Both contain the same two works "Pride and prejudice" and "Sense and sensibility", but one of them contains the English expressions, whereas the other contains the German expressions. The two aggregate works were created by two different persons, completely independently of each other. Now if you first look at figure 2, which illustrates a straightforward "work-of-works" approach, you'll notice that starting e.g. with the "Aggregate Work 2" and going downwards to the work "Sense and sensibility", you then have no way of knowing which of the two expressions to take (the English or the German one), and consequently, there is no way of telling which of the aggregate manifestations shown at the bottom belongs to this aggregate work. Compare this to figure 3, which gives the same thing in the alternative model. I admit that this is much more complicated, but at least it seems to work: Starting with the "Aggregate Work 2" and going downwards you first reach the two "part works". These are unambiguously connected to the expressions which the creator of the "Aggregate Work 2" really used for his collection (the German versions), and this brings you to the right manifestation. So I think we need to have this "doubling" of works, if we want to capture things like that. Now where are the differences between e.g. "W1: Pride and prejudice", "Part 1 of Aggr. Work 1" and "Part 2 of Aggr. Work 2"? It is as you thought: Most of the attributes will be the same, and also some of the relationships (e.g. the relationship to Jane Austen as the creator). I think there should be an additional attribute "aggregate" distinguishing between the individual work (W1) and the "part works". This would have to be newly introduced to FRBR, and it certainly needs some further thinking to sort out the details (e.g. do only the "part works" get this attribute, or also the aggregate work? How can we bring out the difference between "Part 1 of Aggr. Work 1" and "Part 1 of Aggr. Work 2", if both get the same attribute "aggregate")? Another difference - and probably the vital one - between the individual works and the "part works" is how they are integrated in the network of FRBR relationships. One difference is, of course, that only the "part works" have a whole/part relationship with an aggregating work. Another is that whereas, on principle, all existing expressions of "Pride and prejudice" are connected with the box for the individual work, only the expression (or expressions) really used for the aggregate work is/are connected to the "part work". A case where the "part work" boxes would be connected with more than one expression would be a collection of essays, which is republished in a revised version (including revised versions of the essays). Then each part work for an essay would be connected with two expressions. One thing I don't like about the diagrams of the alternative model is that there is, as yet, no direct line between the box for an individual work and the corresponding "part work" boxes. I feel there should be a relationship there
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
J. McRee Elrod wrote: How nice to have Heidrun join Bernhard as a voice of reason from Europe. Germany may save more than the euro zone! Mac had me blushing violently here... I'm not so sure about the euro zone, but I believe it is a very helpful experience to find out that there is more than one way of doing things, that things are actually being done differently elsewhere. When I once spent some months in the UK I found out that I wasn't able to exchange a broken light bulb, and I had to get a friend to help me. For him it was just one short movement of the hand to get the light bulb out - which I hadn't managed on my own. Then we found out why: I had expected light bulbs to be affixed in the same way as they are in Germany (where you have to swivel them), but they're fitted in differently in the UK. It was a simple, yet memorable experience. I've found only one thing with which to disagree. "Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (English. With additional materials)", So nice to see the "preferred title" include main entry. I do think "preferred title" is misleading as a term, when it includes more than a title. "Preferred citation" would make more sense, as well as being in accord with scholarly practice. I like "preferred citation" very much. Actually, the thing Mac and I disagree about (but haven't had time to go into more deeply yet) is the question of main entry as such. Although I had given the title of the work in the form that RDA constructs access points for titles of works here, I've been thinking for a long time that we should get rid of the concept of main entry altogether - aas RDA hasn't really managed, I believe. Although there is no more talk about "main entry" in RDA, the basic distinction between works which are entered under author, under corporate body, or under title is still there in the rules for constructing authorized access points for works and expressions. I'm convinced that users don't need this information in order to help them with their bibliographies. In many German catalogs you won't even see what the main entry is (unless you are a librarian), and nobody seems to miss this. Compare the following two entries in the Southwest German union catalog: http://swb.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=112695671&INDEXSET=1 http://swb.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=276186850&INDEXSET=1 (I hope these links are really persistent as they should be.) The first has main entry under author, the second has main entry under title (it's a collection of essays) - does the difference seem striking to you? In the case of edited collections, we also have a general discrepancy between what librarians think the main entry should be (the title) and how scholars construct their citations (starting with the editor). When Group 1 entities are mentioned in cataloging, e.g. in added entries or footnotes, I think this should (at least in the medium term) be all changed to links via a control number. Have a look at this entry: http://swb.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.1/PPNSET?PPN=355236370&INDEXSET=1 which is the printed version of a doctoral thesis. Under "bibliographic context" there is a link to the corresponding e-book edition. What lies "behind" that is not a standardized text string, but simply the control number for the other record (called a PPN, Pica production number) 35523503X. Obviously this should still be shown in some textual way to the users. But which textual form to use does not necessarily have to be fixed by rules. It could be handled quite flexible in each catalog (perhaps even according to the preferences of each individual user). In this catalog, in the link to the other manifestation the work is not "named" in the conventional form (which in our cataloging tradition would be: "Kostrzewa, Krzysztof: Advanced computational methods in identification of thermo-acoustic systems"). Instead what's taken automatically from the linked record and shown here is simply the title and statement of responsibility (not altoghether a bad idea, I think). As I've already hinted at in some earlier post, we do not use standardized text strings (which in RDA are called "authorized access points") in order to record relationships, but instead we make links to different records voa the control number. E.g. all bibliographic records belonging to the same author are linked to his or her authority record. And all parts of a multi-part work or a monographic series are linked to the corresponding main record for this multi-part work or series itself. Let me openly admit that there is considerable self-interest in my campaign for getting rid of main entry altogether: The reason is that the German and the Anglo-American cataloging tradition quite often differ not on the entries as such, but on which of these entries is the main one. I'm afraid that this will cause a lot of problems and a huge amount of work when Germany will switch over to RDA. T
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" : Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be handled with a placefolder at the expression level. Yes, of course. But I don't think that affects the issues here. As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is covered in RDA. Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and parts will depend on systems. I don't think that's accurate. I think whether systems can display it will depend on how the bibliographic data is structured. It's data that drives systems, not the other way around. What we're trying to figure out is how to structure the data so that the user display will make sense. It appears that if the data for aggregates is not explicitly structured in some whole/part relationship it may not be possible to make that clear to users. Plus, we don't seem to be able to find a defined data structure that corresponds to the instructions in RDA. (I personally think that a contents note would be very useful for some situations, like listing the chapter headings of a book by a single author. I think this is useful information but it shouldn't have to be structured like an embedded work in order to be included.) You may be interested in seeing a training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter. It would "show" you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and FRBR. Yes, I'm familiar with their product. Deborah and I talked recently about trying to create data for some aggregates, especially ones having the same work appear both in an aggregate and separately. After that, though, I think we need to find someone who can load the data into a triple store so we can run some actual linked data processes on it. For a while I've been wishing we had a test suite of RDA data in RDF. That would help us try out some of these ideas and see if the data elements as defined can support the retrieval and displays that we might want. It seems that it would really help if folks could see some results. We may be getting closer to that. kc - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting JOHN C ATTIG : - Original Message - | Karen said: | >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing | >similar to the MARC 505. Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of the parts of the resource. If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit, you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator "Contains" used as a caption. Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties? RDA: http://rdvocab.info/ FRBR: http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In that I am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore, nothing that is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It might seem the same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data definitions that support it. If the RDA 25.1 (and I note that in an earlier message to me you were the one who referred me to 27.1.1.3) is a work/work relationship then it cannot be used to indicate a relationship between a manifestation and a work. It isn't clear to me how a manifestation can have a related work, since manifestation in FRBR must manifest an expression, not a work. It isn't clear to me what kind of relationship a Work can have to a manifestation given the way that they are defined in FRBR. Also note that FRBRer, as defined in the metadata registry, has no "related Work" property. It does have a work/work whole/part relationship. The RDA definition of related Work is: "A work related to the work represented by an identifier, a preferred access point , or a description (e.g., an
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller : 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 Wiesenmu
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller : Firstly, the system should be able to distinguish between an aggregate work and an "ordinary" work. The whole/part relationship (from my approach) would not be enough as ordinary works can have parts as well. So there should be some sort of flag for an aggregate work, perhaps a new attribute (aggregate / non-aggregate). This would require a new FRBR concept, I believe. It would require a new attribute for the work entity. This would certainly have to be approved by the FRBR Review Group. I don't think it would upset the FRBR universe in any dramatic way, though. The aggregate work, as it is a work, needs -among other things - a preferred title of its own (core element in RDA). This might be something like "Bend sinister (With additional materials)" (perhaps also: "Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (English. With additional materials)", taking into account which expression of the novel has been used of the aggreagte work. I'll have to think on that some more). I don't think it can have the language in it, since language is an Expression-level concept. That makes this quite complex, though, because now I don't see a clear relationship between the translation and the original. Yes, that got me thinking as well. It seems somehow wrong to have a typical attribute on expression level like the language in the name of the aggregate work. On the other hand, the alternative model deliberately does _without_ an aggregate expression (there are only expressions of parts of the aggregate work). The language could be deduced from the expression which is embodied in the aggregate manifestation, though. I grant that there is a complexity here which needs to be explored some more. In the case of augmentations, it might be useful to flag the predominant work in the aggregate work somehow (Casey A. Mullin suggested that in one of her posts in this thread). Then we'd also have the possibility to present non-predominant works at the end of such a list, or perhaps present them to the user only via a separate link (e.g. saying: "There are also minor works of Ms Famous, such as: Introduction, in: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With additional materials). Show minor works as well?" 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). 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. 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. Now if somebody looks for the work "Bend sinister" in an English version, the system would look for the English expression (in my diagram: E (W1)) and show all three manifestations linked to this. The system would also note that one of the manifestations is an aggregate one (there would not have to be an attribute "aggregate" on this level, I believe, as the aggregation is obvious from the fact that more than one expression is embodied). In this case, it would display further information about its environment. The display might look somewhat like this English version of: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister - Published: New York : Vintage International, 1990 - Published: Alexandria, Va. : Time-Life Books, 1981, c1947. Together with: Ms Famous: Introduction. In: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With additional materials) - Published: New York : H. Holt, [1947] Would that be an answer to your concerns or have I misunderstood the problem? I think your example works if there is a whole/part relationship between Bend sinister and the introduction, but not if the introduction is coded as "embodied in"
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas said: >The lack of an authorized access point doesn't mean the entity >disappears or can't be accounted for. Control numbers and >identifiers, as well as the collection of associated elements >(including title by itself), can be used to point to an entity. I'm trying to picture this in a footnote or bibliography. I thought one goal of RDA was to "play with others". This turns our back on centuries of scholarly practice. Codes and\or "title by itself" would not work in the larger world. And why all the new terminology? What's wrong with "edition", "citation", "main entry", "subject and added entries", etc.? Are we using new jargon to make ourselves feel important? Mystify the uninitiated? I don't suppose reverting to known terms is part of the mandate of the RDA rewrite? __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod > Sent: January 7, 2012 11:12 AM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > ... > So nice to see the "preferred title" include main entry. I do think > "preferred title" is misleading as a term, when it includes more than > a title. "Preferred title" only includes the title element. Additional elements can be added to construct the authorized access point for the work, which is what the entire string as a heading, including the creator prepended, is called. The authorized access point itself is only one method for identifying an entity. It carries the baggage of all the old main entry rules, which apply to works (series included). The lack of an authorized access point doesn't mean the entity disappears or can't be accounted for. Control numbers and identifiers, as well as the collection of associated elements (including title by itself), can be used to point to an entity. For example, RDA envisions scenarios in which one is not forced to create a name-title heading for a series as the only means of identification. > > In this thread, the WEMI relationship has been spoken of as vertical, > and the whole part one as horizontal. It seems to me we need a third > term for the whole part relationship; the whole part relationship is > not horizontal; as Heidrun has pointed out in other posts, the part is > secondary to the whole. Relationships are reciprocal and can convey this meaning of main and secondary. For example: "Contains" and "Contained in" convey very well the nature of the relationship as to which is whole and which is part. In addition, Numbering of Part is an RDA relationship element that can be added to qualify even further the relationship with a numeric designation, which only adds to the clarification of what is whole and what is secondary. > Translations and editions are horizontal, not > parts. They can be, but only as expressions to their expression counterparts. All cataloging conventions to date have assumed a primary relationship from the work down to the different language translations and editions. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting "J. McRee Elrod" : In MARC, adding a code for aggregate to LDR/06 should do it. Code "c", I assume, means a collection of separate items, as opposed to bound withs. We use it for, as an example, a collection of manuscript letters or sermons. We have to consider that we may not be creating "records" in the sense of MARC, but "graphs" that bring together data entities. The "Work" will be used in a lot of different contexts. So there is no code that will cover the whole graph. That information must be carried in the relationships between things. In this thread, the WEMI relationship has been spoken of as vertical, and the whole part one as horizontal. It seems to me we need a third term for the whole part relationship; the whole part relationship is not horizontal; as Heidrun has pointed out in other posts, the part is secondary to the whole. Translations and editions are horizontal, not parts. Absolutely! Thanks, Mac, for teasing this out. kc __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__ -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
On 06/01/2012 20:34, J. McRee Elrod wrote: James Weinheimer said: Probably, the issue of aggregates is also more related to physical materials than to virtual resources. Absolutely not. While we first encountered the aggregate work problem with papers given at continuing education symposia, we now encounter it with constituent parts of websites. Many electronic publishers have parts of their websites for particular series, subjects, types of users, etc. But if it is just the conference papers etc., everything can be handled as they have always been done, as you point out. What I meant was that with physical materials, it is much easier to know what actually is the "aggregating entity" because you are looking at a book with lots of conference papers, the journal issue with different articles, and so on. From my experience, it is much more difficult for the cataloger to discover precisely what is, or is not, part of the same website, especially if you are looking at specific parts. The webmaster of the specific site knows this much better than anyone else. I am still trying to find better examples, but here are a couple that should illustrate it. You may catalog an electronic document such as this http://library.usask.ca/theses/available/etd-09192010-154127/unrestricted/dissertation.pdf, but you remain completely unaware that it is actually part of this: http://library.usask.ca/theses/available/etd-09192010-154127/. Many times because of the structure of the site, you are looking at a specific article or section, and there is no indication that the item is part of a series. Here's another example: http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000281.txt, is actually part of "The Spunk Library" http://www.spunk.org/, but you would not know it except through creatively playing with the URL. Frame sites (i.e. using the or coding) can be especially confusing, since it can turn out that you are only looking at one part of a whole. Here is an example. You see this page and everything looks OK http://www.gooddocuments.com/philosophy/skimming_m.htm, but it is actually designed to be seen in this way: http://www.gooddocuments.com/philosophy/skimming.htm. With printed materials, the "aggregating entity" will almost always be much more obvious but online, can easily be hidden. And, to return to dynamically-created mashups, while it may be theoretically possible to catalog them according to FRBR, to do so in reality would be more tedious than finding needles in a haystack and probably not worth the effort. So, in a case of an online conference with multiple papers (all virtual), the current methods can be used. But the methods can fall apart for many materials online. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller : Firstly, the system should be able to distinguish between an aggregate work and an "ordinary" work. The whole/part relationship (from my approach) would not be enough as ordinary works can have parts as well. So there should be some sort of flag for an aggregate work, perhaps a new attribute (aggregate / non-aggregate). This would require a new FRBR concept, I believe. The aggregate work, as it is a work, needs -among other things - a preferred title of its own (core element in RDA). This might be something like "Bend sinister (With additional materials)" (perhaps also: "Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (English. With additional materials)", taking into account which expression of the novel has been used of the aggreagte work. I'll have to think on that some more). I don't think it can have the language in it, since language is an Expression-level concept. That makes this quite complex, though, because now I don't see a clear relationship between the translation and the original. In the case of augmentations, it might be useful to flag the predominant work in the aggregate work somehow (Casey A. Mullin suggested that in one of her posts in this thread). Then we'd also have the possibility to present non-predominant works at the end of such a list, or perhaps present them to the user only via a separate link (e.g. saying: "There are also minor works of Ms Famous, such as: Introduction, in: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With additional materials). Show minor works as well?" 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. Now if somebody looks for the work "Bend sinister" in an English version, the system would look for the English expression (in my diagram: E (W1)) and show all three manifestations linked to this. The system would also note that one of the manifestations is an aggregate one (there would not have to be an attribute "aggregate" on this level, I believe, as the aggregation is obvious from the fact that more than one expression is embodied). In this case, it would display further information about its environment. The display might look somewhat like this English version of: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister - Published: New York : Vintage International, 1990 - Published: Alexandria, Va. : Time-Life Books, 1981, c1947. Together with: Ms Famous: Introduction. In: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With additional materials) - Published: New York : H. Holt, [1947] Would that be an answer to your concerns or have I misunderstood the problem? I think your example works if there is a whole/part relationship between Bend sinister and the introduction, but not if the introduction is coded as "embodied in" the manifestation. In the latter case you have: W Nabokov.Bend sinister E Bend sinister. English M Bend sinister. NY, vintage, 1990 M Bend sinister. Alexandria, T-L. 1981 M Bend sinister. NY, Holt, 1947 W Ms Famous. Introduction E English M Bend sinister. Alexandria, T-L. 1981 Do a title search on "Bend sinister" and you retrieve the introduction if it has been coded in this way. Even if you can find an efficient way to "de-duplicate" at this point, the information does not exist to determine that the Introduction is a "minor" work, because every work is a work, and major and minor depend on the context. I believe that at this moment we do not have a way to make that distinction using FRBR. 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. kc Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A. Hochschule der Medien Fakultät Information und Kommunikation Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188 Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868 Fax. 0711/25706-300 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
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Heidrun said: >I don't see any problems here which couldn't be solved by sound >underlying data structures on the one hand and a proper design of the=20 >display on the other. How nice to have Heidrun join Bernhard as a voice of reason from Europe. Germany may save more than the euro zone! >Firstly, the system should be able to distinguish between an aggregate >work and an "ordinary" work. In MARC, adding a code for aggregate to LDR/06 should do it. Code "c", I assume, means a collection of separate items, as opposed to bound withs. We use it for, as an example, a collection of manuscript letters or sermons. >The whole/part relationship (from my approach) would not be enough as >ordinary works can have parts as well. YES. We do chapter level records, including records for prefaces and bibliographies, for some electronic publishers. They offer parts of their works in mix and match packages. It is so refreshing to read a post from someone who seems to occupy the same bibliographic world as SLC. In offlist correspondence with this brilliant woman, I've found only one thing with which to disagree. >"Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (English. With >additional materials)", So nice to see the "preferred title" include main entry. I do think "preferred title" is misleading as a term, when it includes more than a title. "Preferred citation" would make more sense, as well as being in accord with scholarly practice. On the other hand, series citation should only include series title. We know who wrote the past issues of a series, but not who will write the next one. >There may be also a way to record the title of the introduction not >simply as "Introduction", but perhaps in a more meaningful way as >"Introduction [to Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister]" When we prepare part records for electronic monographs, and the part title is not distinctive, we use 245 10 $a.$p, e.g., $pIntroduction, Preface, Bibliography. It seems better to me to gather by title the nondistinctive parts of a monograph, rather than to gather all the prefaces, introductions, and bibliographies. In this thread, the WEMI relationship has been spoken of as vertical, and the whole part one as horizontal. It seems to me we need a third term for the whole part relationship; the whole part relationship is not horizontal; as Heidrun has pointed out in other posts, the part is secondary to the whole. Translations and editions are horizontal, not parts. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Karen Coyle : 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? Casey, you might be able to answer this one since this seems to be a common situation in music data. kc This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps it is sufficient. The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams) 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 Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data. kc Of course there will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it can be added. This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry, and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while allowing the structure to be complete in systems. As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is covered in RDA. Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and parts will depend on systems. You may be interested in seeing a training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter. It would "show" you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and FRBR. - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting JOHN C ATTIG : - Original Message - | Karen said: | >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing | >similar to the MARC 505. Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of the parts of the resource. If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit, you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator "Contains" used as a caption. Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties? RDA: http://rdvocab.info/ FRBR: http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In that I am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore, nothing that is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It might seem the same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data definitions that support it. If the RDA 25.1 (and I note that in an earlier message to me you were the one who referred me to 27.1.1.3) is a work/work relationship then it cannot be used to indicate a relationship between a manifestation and a work. It isn't clear to me how a manifestation can have a related work, since manifestation in FRBR must manifest an expression, not a work. It isn't clear to me what kind of relationship a Work can have to a manifestation given the way that they are defined in FRBR. Also note that FRBRer, as defined in the metadata registry, has no "related Work" property. It does have a work/work whole/part relationship. The RDA definition of related Work is: "A work related to the work represented by an identifier, a preferred access point , or a description (e.g., an adaptation, commentary, supplement, sequel, part of a larger work)." I read this as a set of work/work relationships. There are no Manifestation to Work relationships in FRBR. There is a whole/part relationship between manifestations in FRBR 5.3.4.1. While it might make logical sense to point from a manifestation to "related works" the underlying structure of FRBR does not support this as far as I can tell. Therefore,
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Karen Coyle wrote: 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. Just noting that in my "alternative model", I think this could be done after all. If you look at figure 2 in my "additional diagrams" paper, the place to record an attribute "secondary" would be the entity marked "Part 2 of Aggr. Work". Actually, I believe this may be a good argument for having the model like this (although it looks a bit complicated by having "Work 2" and "Part 2 of Aggr. Work" together at the same time), and not simply having a simpler arrangement like this: Aggregate work Part 1: Work 1 Part 2: Work 2 Indeed Work 2 couldn't then be marked "secondary" as it is not secondary "as such". It is secondary only with regard to the part it plays in the aggregate work - and this can be captured, I think, in my model. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A. Hochschule der Medien Fakultät Information und Kommunikation Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188 Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868 Fax. 0711/25706-300 www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Casey A Mullin : 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 : 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://lc
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Diane Hillmann wrote: 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. We certainly should think of FRBR as a dynamic system which is not "finished" and closed once and for all, but will have to evolve and expand. It also should be flexible enough to provide a variety of approaches, so there is certainly nothing wrong with having modeling variants. Still, I believe it would be a good thing to have those variants moving within certain boundaries marked out by the FRBR system, so that they adhere to the "FRBR basics". If an application does not completely follow the "FRBR basics" this would not be something inherently "bad". It might be absolutely useful and fitting for the application in question, and, of course it might still be possible to provide meaningful connections between this application and other applications which move fully within the FRBR boundaries. Perhaps the discrepancies can also point to aspects where the "FRBR basics" should be improved, and in this case the community might want to incorporate them. But as long as this hasn't happened, the application should be openly called a "non-completely FRBR" application. To my mind, aggregates are such an important thing that the modeling of them should be included in the FRBR basics. This does certainly not mean there can only be one way of doing it; we might accept more than solution as being within the boundaries of FRBR. 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. Thanks for pointing that out. If I understand the scenario correctly, it shows an "aggregate as work-of-work" approach, making use of whole/part relationships. This is, I find, an entirely plausible and intuitively reasonable way of looking at something like a festschrift (by the way: my students always find it quite hilarious when I tell them about this beautiful Germanism). My "alternative model" is rather similar (but not identical) to this. But what bothers me is that this approach is the one _not_ presented in the Final Report for the modeling of aggregates: The Working Group's general model does not have a part/whole relationship at any stage which seems counterintuitive. Note that there is mentioning of part/whole relationships in Appendix B, reflecting the view of some members of the Working Group. Looking at the proposed FRBR amendment on p. 6-7 of the report, I'm at a loss to decide whether a modeling using whole/part relationships would be acceptable (in the sense of: being within the boundaries of FRBR basics) as an alternative to the main model of the Working Group, or not. One of the things I dislike about the report is that it very often doesn't spell out things clearly. So when trying to find out what they _really_ mean, there is a lot of speculation and exegesis involved. This is not only my own impression but that of some of my German colleagues, as well. Sorry about putting this criticsm so plainly. It is not meant in a personal way at all. Of course I understand that the problem is a "devilish" one indeed, as Karen put it, and I'm also sure that the members of the Working Group did their very best in a difficult situation when, obviously, a consensus was hard to reach. Still, the result is not something I can be comfortable with. Heidrun -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Karen, My concern is about examples like the one I gave, although it may have been imperfect. Assume that the preface is one that is considered important enough to be noted in the catalog record, one that is written by someone famous. You want to include an entry for that preface under the name of Ms. Famous. It's a Work, so you need a Work entry. (Also, you can't indicate a creator without having a Work entity.) You want to indicate that the Work is a part of the Manifestation along with the main text. Adding a new Expression-Work unit is not a clear part/whole relationship (which is what Heidrun is pointing out). And again I'm interested in how this would be displayed to a user, how this set of relationships will be brought together in a display. Perhaps one could treat this secondary "Work" as a related manifestation? However, in FRBR structural terms, all Works are Works, there are no "lesser Works," so there would be no difference between this preface and an essay in a set of essays. I don't see any problems here which couldn't be solved by sound underlying data structures on the one hand and a proper design of the display on the other. Firstly, the system should be able to distinguish between an aggregate work and an "ordinary" work. The whole/part relationship (from my approach) would not be enough as ordinary works can have parts as well. So there should be some sort of flag for an aggregate work, perhaps a new attribute (aggregate / non-aggregate). By the way, if one were to transform AACR/MARC data into FRBR/RDA data by means of algorithms, I think there would be lots of indicators in the records (like 505 or 490/8XX) pointing out whether something is an aggregate or not. Augmentations are different in that respect (you'd have a hard time analyzing them mechanically, as probably the only information which could be used are things like "edited with an introduction and notes by ..."). Therefore, for something like the augmented edition of Nabokov's novel the flagging would be something which has to be done by the cataloger who has decided to treat it as an aggregate work in the first place. The aggregate work, as it is a work, needs -among other things - a preferred title of its own (core element in RDA). This might be something like "Bend sinister (With additional materials)" (perhaps also: "Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (English. With additional materials)", taking into account which expression of the novel has been used of the aggreagte work. I'll have to think on that some more). There may be also a way to record the title of the introduction not simply as "Introduction", but perhaps in a more meaningful way as "Introduction [to Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister]" or some such like. This would not be imperative, thpugh, as it can be made clear in a different way as well: The environment of the work "Introduction" (i.e. the aggregate work and/or the other works) can be displayed to the user. So, assuming the introduction in question is by a Ms Famous, and that's why we want to bring it out in the catalog in the first place (by the way, I'd rather like to think of catalogers as not using criteria like this), and somebody is looking for all the works of Ms Famous, they might get: Famous Work #1 Famous Work #2 Introduction, in: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With additional materials) Famous Work #3 In the case of augmentations, it might be useful to flag the predominant work in the aggregate work somehow (Casey A. Mullin suggested that in one of her posts in this thread). Then we'd also have the possibility to present non-predominant works at the end of such a list, or perhaps present them to the user only via a separate link (e.g. saying: "There are also minor works of Ms Famous, such as: Introduction, in: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With additional materials). Show minor works as well?" Now if somebody looks for the work "Bend sinister" in an English version, the system would look for the English expression (in my diagram: E (W1)) and show all three manifestations linked to this. The system would also note that one of the manifestations is an aggregate one (there would not have to be an attribute "aggregate" on this level, I believe, as the aggregation is obvious from the fact that more than one expression is embodied). In this case, it would display further information about its environment. The display might look somewhat like this English version of: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister - Published: New York : Vintage International, 1990 - Published: Alexandria, Va. : Time-Life Books, 1981, c1947. Together with: Ms Famous: Introduction. In: Nabokov, Vladimir, 1869-1922. Bend sinister (With additional materials) - Published: New York : H. Holt, [1947] Would that be an answer to your concerns or have I misunderstood the problem? Heidrun -- --
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [li...@kcoyle.net] Sent: January-06-12 6:55 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates >Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" : >>> Is "embodies" a part/whole relationship? Because you only have one option: >> This is a primary relationship-- a manifestation has an "expression >> manifested" as an inherent aspect of the resource. The expression is >> "embodied" in the manifestation. [Note also Barbara Tillett's >> comment on the potential placeholder nature of the expression >> between the work and the manifestation in these primary >> relationships]. >Yes, but I disagree that this is a whole/part relationship. In FRBR, >and I believe in RDA, whole/part relationships are between things of >the same type. A publication of Moby Dick is not a "part" of the >Expression Moby Dick -- it is a different type of entity. It >"manifests" the expression. It is a transformation. (And as Ron Murray >would point out, it is a different level of abstraction.) >> A whole/part relationship is horizontal. It's work -- contains -- work. >Right, so the question is: can there be "horizontal" relationships >between different types of entities? Like a manifestation to a work. I >believe that logically that cannot be. The issues around this need to be unpacked a bit more. The report on aggregrates described only primary relationships-- between the individual works and individual expressions embodied in the manifestation, and the aggregating work and aggregating expression embodied in the manifestation. These primary (vertical) relationships are not whole-part relationships, which are horizontal relationships (work to work; expression to expression; manifestation to manifestation). The primary relationships (RDA Chapter 17) are not well handled in MARC. Therefore it's hard to picture the conventions to use. Generally, one infers these relationships from the conjunction of data in a MARC record. Whole-part relationships are a different kind of relationship. They can be used along with primary relationships-- they are not mutually exclusive. The whole-part relationship can be done in MARC with a 505 field (and in other ways). So one can have the aggregating work (the compilation of articles) "contain" individual articles (which are separate works). Using this horizontal relationship is not a replacement for the primary relationships for the articles to the manifestation, but it can be the only method we have of inferring those primary relationships. This can be illustrated by a syllogism: A. Aggregating work contains individual articles (each a work) through a 505 field representing a whole-part relationship (Work--Contains (work) using the RDA designators and registered elements) B. Aggregating work "is embodied in" the manifestation (no real convention in MARC, perhaps just the preferred title representing the aggregating work in the 245 field) - there is a registered RDA element though for this primary relationship C. Therefore each invididual article also "is embodied in" the manifestation. (Perhaps the coding for these primary relationships could be automatically generated). In a MARC record, coding for these two kinds of relationships looks redundant. The user can usually infer what's going on. But the advantage to explicitly encoding all the relationships is that it could allow the different relationships to be displayed consistently when information is taken out of context, and when users navigate the relationships to find other related works, expressions, and manifestations (and any other related entities such as creators and subjects). Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" : Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be handled with a placefolder at the expression level. Yes, but what is the relationship? "to" isn't a valid relationship. As I read both FRBR and RDA, the whole/part has to be between Manifestations. I don't see how you can have a whole/part from a Manifestation to an Expression. Or you can simply have Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression A Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression B Manifestation 1 is embodiment of Expression C This to me seems inferior to a whole/part relationship, but perhaps it is sufficient. The other option is to have (and this is hard to do without diagrams) 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 Again, without mocking this up it's hard to imagine what users would see. However, I think this is conceptually valid linked data. kc Of course there will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it can be added. This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry, and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while allowing the structure to be complete in systems. As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is covered in RDA. Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and parts will depend on systems. You may be interested in seeing a training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter. It would "show" you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and FRBR. - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting JOHN C ATTIG : - Original Message - | Karen said: | >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing | >similar to the MARC 505. Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of the parts of the resource. If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit, you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator "Contains" used as a caption. Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties? RDA: http://rdvocab.info/ FRBR: http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In that I am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore, nothing that is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It might seem the same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data definitions that support it. If the RDA 25.1 (and I note that in an earlier message to me you were the one who referred me to 27.1.1.3) is a work/work relationship then it cannot be used to indicate a relationship between a manifestation and a work. It isn't clear to me how a manifestation can have a related work, since manifestation in FRBR must manifest an expression, not a work. It isn't clear to me what kind of relationship a Work can have to a manifestation given the way that they are defined in FRBR. Also note that FRBRer, as defined in the metadata registry, has no "related Work" property. It does have a work/work whole/part relationship. The RDA definition of related Work is: "A work related to the work represented by an identifier, a preferred access point , or a description (e.g., an adaptation, commentary, supplement, sequel, part of a larger work)." I read this as a set of work/work relationships. There are no Manifestation to Work relationships in FRBR. There is a whole/part relationship between manifestations in FRBR 5.3.4.1. While it might make logical sense to point from a manifestation to "related works" the underlying
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" : Is "embodies" a part/whole relationship? Because you only have one option: This is a primary relationship-- a manifestation has an "expression manifested" as an inherent aspect of the resource. The expression is "embodied" in the manifestation. [Note also Barbara Tillett's comment on the potential placeholder nature of the expression between the work and the manifestation in these primary relationships]. Yes, but I disagree that this is a whole/part relationship. In FRBR, and I believe in RDA, whole/part relationships are between things of the same type. A publication of Moby Dick is not a "part" of the Expression Moby Dick -- it is a different type of entity. It "manifests" the expression. It is a transformation. (And as Ron Murray would point out, it is a different level of abstraction.) A whole/part relationship is horizontal. It's work -- contains -- work. Right, so the question is: can there be "horizontal" relationships between different types of entities? Like a manifestation to a work. I believe that logically that cannot be. Also ... There seems to be a glitch in the MARC-RDA and RDA-MARC maps in the RDA Toolkit. In the MARC-RDA map, 505 only maps to "Related work" (specifically "Contains (work)" designator, also found in http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/450.html ). and as those have been explained to me (but they are not currently coded explicitly in that way in the RDA properties), "Contains (work)" is a work/work relationship, and the other "contains" relationships are also between entities of the same type. If we want a Manifestation contains work Manifestation contains expression expression contains work assuming that these are logical, then those relationships need to be made explicit in the registered properties. This still doesn't answer the question about how one then serves this data to users, which I will continue to see as the key question to be answered. kc However, the reverse RDA-MARC map has Contains (work), Contains (expression), Contains (manifestation), Contains (item) mapping to 505. Examples in the main text of the RDA Toolkit: Example in RDA 25.1.1.3 - Related work -- Contains (work) Contains: 'Til death do us plots / by Julianne Bernstein — Class act / by Michael Elkin — Where's your stuff? / by Daniel Brenner — Foot peddler / by Vivian Green — Smoke / by Louis Greenstein — Single Jewish female / by Julianne Bernstein — In spite of everything / by Hindi Brooks — Ger (the convert) / by Leslie B. Gold and Louis Greenstein — Golden opportunity / by Julianne Bernstein — Interview with a scapegoat / by Louis Greenstein Example in RDA 27.1.1.3 – Related manifestation -- Contains (manifestation) Contains: v. 1. Status, distribution, and taxonomy (xvii, 848 pages : 1 map) — v. 2. Field guide (xvii, 740 pages, 96 leaves of plates : illustrations (some coloured), maps (1 coloured)) Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle > Sent: January 6, 2012 5:06 PM > To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > > Quoting Casey A Mullin : > > > > 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: > This is a primary relationship-- a manifestation has an "expression manifested" as an inherent aspect of the resource. The expression is "embodied" in the manifestation. [Note also Barbara Tillett's comment on the potential placeholder nature of the expression between the work and the manifestation in these primary relationships]. The registry element is Expression Manifested - http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/1186.html . There is no direct equivalent to this in MARC-- the relationship is just implicit in the data gathered together in the record. Primary relationships are vertical. It's work -- down to -- expression -- down to -- manifestation -- down to -- item. A whole/part relationship is horizontal. It's work -- contains -- work. Also ... There seems to be a glitch in the MARC-RDA and RDA-MARC maps in the RDA Toolkit. In the MARC-RDA map, 505 only maps to "Related work" (specifically "Contains (work)" designator, also found in http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/450.html ). However, the reverse RDA-MARC map has Contains (work), Contains (expression), Contains (manifestation), Contains (item) mapping to 505. Examples in the main text of the RDA Toolkit: Example in RDA 25.1.1.3 - Related work -- Contains (work) Contains: 'Til death do us plots / by Julianne Bernstein — Class act / by Michael Elkin — Where's your stuff? / by Daniel Brenner — Foot peddler / by Vivian Green — Smoke / by Louis Greenstein — Single Jewish female / by Julianne Bernstein — In spite of everything / by Hindi Brooks — Ger (the convert) / by Leslie B. Gold and Louis Greenstein — Golden opportunity / by Julianne Bernstein — Interview with a scapegoat / by Louis Greenstein Example in RDA 27.1.1.3 – Related manifestation -- Contains (manifestation) Contains: v. 1. Status, distribution, and taxonomy (xvii, 848 pages : 1 map) — v. 2. Field guide (xvii, 740 pages, 96 leaves of plates : illustrations (some coloured), maps (1 coloured)) Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quick note to mention that the manifestation to work bit can be handled with a placefolder at the expression level. Of course there will always actually be an expression, but a cataloger may choose not to identify it for local reasons, and if someone needs it later, it can be added. This has been discussed by the JSC and with Gordon Dunsire when looking a the element set on the Open Metadata Registry, and we felt this was a workable approach that enables practice while allowing the structure to be complete in systems. As for the whole/part relationships and mapping to 505, that also is covered in RDA. Whether it would be displayed as a note as now with MARC or done otherwise in the future with links between the whole and parts will depend on systems. You may be interested in seeing a training tool used by The MARC of Quality folks (Deborah and Richard Fritz - they just did a demo here at LC yesterday) which beautifully demonstrates such links in a non-MARC environment - I hope they can show their views to others at ALA or soon thereafter. It would "show" you how all of your questions in this thread work nicely with RDA and FRBR. - Barbara Tillett (personal opinion) -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:46 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates Quoting JOHN C ATTIG : > - Original Message - > > | Karen said: > > | >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing > | >similar to the MARC 505. > > Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are > considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a > structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of > the parts of the resource. > > If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit, > you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the > examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you > will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator > "Contains" used as a caption. Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties? RDA: http://rdvocab.info/ FRBR: http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In that I am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore, nothing that is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It might seem the same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data definitions that support it. If the RDA 25.1 (and I note that in an earlier message to me you were the one who referred me to 27.1.1.3) is a work/work relationship then it cannot be used to indicate a relationship between a manifestation and a work. It isn't clear to me how a manifestation can have a related work, since manifestation in FRBR must manifest an expression, not a work. It isn't clear to me what kind of relationship a Work can have to a manifestation given the way that they are defined in FRBR. Also note that FRBRer, as defined in the metadata registry, has no "related Work" property. It does have a work/work whole/part relationship. The RDA definition of related Work is: "A work related to the work represented by an identifier, a preferred access point , or a description (e.g., an adaptation, commentary, supplement, sequel, part of a larger work)." I read this as a set of work/work relationships. There are no Manifestation to Work relationships in FRBR. There is a whole/part relationship between manifestations in FRBR 5.3.4.1. While it might make logical sense to point from a manifestation to "related works" the underlying structure of FRBR does not support this as far as I can tell. Therefore, if the RDA properties are associated definitionally each with a FRBR entity, the instructions in 27.1 cannot be used to create valid data. this is why we MUST actually try to create data using the data definitions we have and see if we indeed CAN create RDA data. kc p.s. Back to the paper by Wiesenmuller, I think that the part/whole relationships are the only ones that are usable here, and they do require an Expression between the Manifestation and the Work. > > I see no reason why we cannot continue to formulate contents notes as > we currently do, and continue to tag them in MARC field 505. > > I do find the RDA documentation on structured descriptions of > relationships to be inadequate. There are in fact no instructions on > creating such descrip
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
I think "embodies" and "expresses" mean the same thing here. One term is taken from FRBR and the other from RDA. Karen's right that the three expressions are "equal" in this example, in that there is no whole/part relationship that binds them, at least in strict FRBR. Rather, they are bound by virtue of the fact that they are embodied/expressed in the same manifestation. An important thing to note from the Aggregates report (quoting from p.5): "An aggregating work is not a discrete section or even necessarily an identifiable part of the resulting manifestation and does not contain the aggregated works themselves." RDA does not adhere to this notion, since aggregate works and constituent works are related by a whole/part relationship (something, by the way, I disagree with). The current MARC implementation mapped out in the RDA Toolkit assumes that the aggregate is always the main, "core" work, which is believe is the source of Karen's (and others') consternation with the implications of the Aggregates report. 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 hope that makes sense. Casey On 1/6/2012 1:52 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Casey A Mullin : 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, 1899-197
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Casey A Mullin : 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 t
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting JOHN C ATTIG : - Original Message - | Karen said: | >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing | >similar | >to the MARC 505. Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of the parts of the resource. If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit, you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator "Contains" used as a caption. Note: I am looking at this from a data creation point of view. Data creation is not nearly as maleable as notions and ideas. My question is: can we create valid data using FRBR and the published RDA properties? RDA: http://rdvocab.info/ FRBR: http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html John, there is no contents note in the list of RDA elements. In that I am sure I am correct. And MARC 505 is a note. Therefore, nothing that is the same as the 505 exists in RDA *as defined*. It might seem the same conceptually, but I am struggling to find data definitions that support it. If the RDA 25.1 (and I note that in an earlier message to me you were the one who referred me to 27.1.1.3) is a work/work relationship then it cannot be used to indicate a relationship between a manifestation and a work. It isn't clear to me how a manifestation can have a related work, since manifestation in FRBR must manifest an expression, not a work. It isn't clear to me what kind of relationship a Work can have to a manifestation given the way that they are defined in FRBR. Also note that FRBRer, as defined in the metadata registry, has no "related Work" property. It does have a work/work whole/part relationship. The RDA definition of related Work is: "A work related to the work represented by an identifier, a preferred access point , or a description (e.g., an adaptation, commentary, supplement, sequel, part of a larger work)." I read this as a set of work/work relationships. There are no Manifestation to Work relationships in FRBR. There is a whole/part relationship between manifestations in FRBR 5.3.4.1. While it might make logical sense to point from a manifestation to "related works" the underlying structure of FRBR does not support this as far as I can tell. Therefore, if the RDA properties are associated definitionally each with a FRBR entity, the instructions in 27.1 cannot be used to create valid data. this is why we MUST actually try to create data using the data definitions we have and see if we indeed CAN create RDA data. kc p.s. Back to the paper by Wiesenmuller, I think that the part/whole relationships are the only ones that are usable here, and they do require an Expression between the Manifestation and the Work. I see no reason why we cannot continue to formulate contents notes as we currently do, and continue to tag them in MARC field 505. I do find the RDA documentation on structured descriptions of relationships to be inadequate. There are in fact no instructions on creating such descriptions. I have prepared a brief discussion paper on this issue, which will be discussed at the meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) at ALA Midwinter this month. I hope that we can improve the instructions for describing relationships in RDA. John Attig ALA Representative to the JSC jx...@psu.edu -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
- Original Message - | Karen said: | >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing | >similar | >to the MARC 505. Karen is not quite correct. The contents (parts) of a resource are considered Related Works in RDA. The formatted contents note is a structured description of the related work -- a list of the titles of the parts of the resource. If you look at the MARC to RDA mapping provided in the RDA toolkit, you will find that field 505 maps to RDA 25.1 (Related work). In the examples of structured descriptions of related works under 25.1, you will find examples of contents notes with the relationship designator "Contains" used as a caption. I see no reason why we cannot continue to formulate contents notes as we currently do, and continue to tag them in MARC field 505. I do find the RDA documentation on structured descriptions of relationships to be inadequate. There are in fact no instructions on creating such descriptions. I have prepared a brief discussion paper on this issue, which will be discussed at the meeting of the Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA) at ALA Midwinter this month. I hope that we can improve the instructions for describing relationships in RDA. John Attig ALA Representative to the JSC jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
> -Original Message- > From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca] > Sent: January 6, 2012 2:35 PM > To: Brenndorfer, Thomas > Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working > Group on Aggregates > > > Thomas Brenndorfer said: > > >Probably, the issue of aggregates is also more related to physical > >materials than to virtual resources. > > Absolutely not. While we first encountered the aggregate work problem > with papers given at continuing education symposia, we now encounter > it with constituent parts of websites. I do agree with you Mac. It was James Weinheimer who made that comment. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Karen said: >RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing similar >to the MARC 505. We first ran into this problem with papers given at continuing legal education symposia. The terrible solution we have is putting the paper titles in 695 for keyword searching. Our index is online at LexisNexis, they having acquired QuickLaw where we originally placed it. Until computer searching took over, we published a print cumulating KWIC index based on the 695s. The existence of UTLAS KWIC software using that field was the reason we used it. The best solution we have seen is UKMARC's 248 for constituent part. British librarians should have insisted on that when adopting MARC21. We only produce UKMARC for one client. It's use is declining. I've no idea how constituent title would fit into RDA, or the proposed new coding system. But the UKMARC 248 experience should be considered. Seems to me we often fail to look at prior experience. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Thomas Brenndorfer said: >Probably, the issue of aggregates is also more related to physical >materials than to virtual resources. Absolutely not. While we first encountered the aggregate work problem with papers given at continuing education symposia, we now encounter it with constituent parts of websites. Many electronic publishers have parts of their websites for particular series, subjects, types of users, etc. For the constituent part records we use the website in 490/830, since many clients' ILS can't handle 773, but the parts coded as UKMARC's 248 in a record for the website would much neater. On the other hand, for systems which can only handle one 856 per record (such as ebrary), there must be a monograph record for each part having its own URL. People say we should not taylor practice to bad systems, but if those system are all we have? Systems development should have higher priority than rule and coding change. Present system don't take full advantage of the bibliographic records we already have. __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca) {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/ ___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Hello, First, to respond to Karen's more recent posting: ""Pure" aggregates (a book of essays, e.g.) are also somewhat easy, or at least they were: the record is for the book as a whole, and, if possible, a table of contents note is created. Where that model "fails" is that is often isn't easy to retrieve the book with a search on an individual essay. RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing similar to the MARC 505. Apparently the equivalent in RDA is 27.1.1.3 for "Structured description of the related manifestation", but I can't figure out how those are actually connected to the manifestation being described. (This is where it would be great to have some RDA records mocked-up without using MARC. They could just be text or diagrams.) " The element in question is actually 25.1.1.3, Structured Description of Related Works. This is where MARC 505 actually maps to. In Karen's example (or, what the report refers to as an "aggregate collection of expressions"), there is only one manifestation. Embodied in that manifestation is the aggregate expression and the constituent expressions; each of these realizes their respective works. Those works are identified in MARC via the "main entry" (1xx/240 or 245) and some combination of 505 and 7xx analytics, respectively. RDA allows for either, or both approaches. In fact, it's only "core" to identify the aggregate work/expression; identifying the constituent works/expressions is optional (for LC, only the first is required, though certain aggregates are exempt from this provision). As for non-MARC mock-ups, I found the ones in the WG report quite helpful (especially the one on page 5). Now, on to Karen's earlier message (copied below): the second type of aggregate that the report identifies ("aggregate resulting from augmentation") represents a significant shift in thinking. But I think it's important to distinguish how we model/construe the entities from how we describe and provide access to those entities. To present Karen's example slightly differently, here's how I would break it down. Entities that EXIST: Work 1 (Nabokov's novel) Work 2 (new introduction by Nabokov) Work 3 (aggregate embodied in Manifestation 3) Expression 1 (English language version of novel) Expression 2 (English language version of introduction) Expression 3 (English language version of aggregate) Manifestation 1 (embodies E 1) Manifestation 2 (embodies E 1) Manifestation 3 (embodies E 1,2,3) 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.: 89040
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Diane Hillmann Sent: January 6, 2012 11:31 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates >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. I think the original FRBR report describes the limitations well. The purpose was to help to articulate the entities that already form the basis for much of the efforts in bibliographic description and access. More is needed, and the model is assumed to be open for extension, elaboration, and modification because one can do a lot more with catalog data than offered in the traditional catalog designs. Thinking of RDA, I view it as a bridge product. RDA was designed for three scenarios: 1) one can still produce cards from it (although heftier cards given the reduction in abbreviations), 2) one can apply it to a MARC environment (generally well, with several limitations) with its linked bibliographic and authority records, and 3) one can use the RDA element set in ways in which extensibility and flexibility will flourish. That RDA is organized around entities, attributes, and relationships, following the FR models, means that what can be added are more entities, more attributes, and more relationships. What the debates should be about is which of those three tools is appropriate for issues like aggregations. In that particular case I haven't seen a lot of discussion of the horizontal relationships, only the vertical primary relationships of work > expression > manifestation. Horizontal relationships include everything from whole-part to derivative and supplementary relationships. A search result for a particular entity could display grouped language translations and content types (vertical relationships) alongside adaptations (horizontal relationships) at the same level. The FRBR tree can be hidden behind the scenes and would supply some additional logic for the display, but the display itself could be reflective of groupings and connections that the user thinks important. Individual works and aggregate works can be related, via expressions, to a common manifestation, but the horizontal relationships can lead one across from the aggregate work and then down to other manifestations of one of the expressions in a more direct way. One isn't limited to the vertical branches of the FRBR tree, but only to the accounting of all the possible relationships between the relevant entities. >From http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current1.htm#1.3 : 1.3 Areas for Further Study The model developed for this study represents an initial attempt to establish a logical framework to assist in the understanding and further development of conventions for bibliographic description. It is intended to provide a base for common understanding and further dialogue, but it does not presume to be the last word on the issues it addresses. Certain aspects of the model merit more detailed analysis and there are dimensions of the model that could be extended. To fulfill the second charge in its terms of reference, the study group used the model as the framework for its recommendations on a basic level national bibliographic record. It is hoped, however, that the model itself will serve as a useful starting point for a number of follow-up studies of interest to those involved with designing cataloguing codes and systems to support the creation, management, and use of bibliographic data. The model could be extended to cover the additional data that are normally recorded in authority records. In particular, further analysis is needed of the entities that are the centre of focus for subject authorities, thesauri, and classification schemes, and of the relationships between those entities. Certain aspects of the model merit more detailed examination. The identification and definition of attributes for various types of material could be extended through further review by experts and through user studies. In particular, the notion of "seriality" and the dynamic nature of entities recorded in digital formats merit further analysis. The model developed for this study represents, as far as possible, a "generalized" view of the bibliographic universe; it is intended to b
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
I've been reading with great interest this thread and in conjunction with what James just wrote I'd like to offer a bare bones mantra my cataloging professor taught me when I would attempt to decline a Dewey # to the 14th level: "Remember, Mike: it's only an address." I love the "elegance" of RDA and FRBR and, as a student of the more esoteric aspects of String Theory, am intrigued with those aspects contained within the fabric of RDA. I do wonder, however, if in trying to be all things to all things, we might end up leading the Seeker not to the Forest but rather the Trees. Wishing you all the very best New Year! ~Mike Keach Tampa-Hillsborough County Library Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -Original Message- From: James Weinheimer Sender: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:40:49 To: Reply-To: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates On 06/01/2012 15:41, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: The entities exist whether they're brought out in the cataloging as significant or not. In RDA, many such entities and their relationships are captured in unstructured descriptions or transcribed elements, without any mechanism for identifiers (separate records, authorized access points, URIs, control numbers, etc.). I beg to differ about "existence" of the entities. What FRBR did was to take out of the catalog an *arrangement* of the cards, which had been transferred into the computer, and then to transform this arrangement into an "entity" with all of those attributes. In this sense, saying that a "work" exists is just like proclaiming that a royal flush "exists" in poker, and therefore the royal flush has various attributes. The royal flush does not exist as such, it comes about only through a specified arrangement of the playing cards which in fact, *do* exist. The reason for the arrangement of cards in the catalog was for retrieval. That's all. Over many centuries, librarians discovered through trial and error that people wanted to find the books in their collections in specific ways and they used the arrangements of the cards to provide that. A library would get another version/copy/edition of the Bible and would need to include it intelligently into the catalog. (Compare this to the lack of any intellectual arrangement in that catalog of the Rev. Prince I mentioned in my previous post) It wasn't philosophical, it was totally pragmatic. The philosophical view grew out of the pragmatic basis. But the pragmatic basis should always take precedence over theory. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
On 06/01/2012 15:41, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: The entities exist whether they're brought out in the cataloging as significant or not. In RDA, many such entities and their relationships are captured in unstructured descriptions or transcribed elements, without any mechanism for identifiers (separate records, authorized access points, URIs, control numbers, etc.). I beg to differ about "existence" of the entities. What FRBR did was to take out of the catalog an *arrangement* of the cards, which had been transferred into the computer, and then to transform this arrangement into an "entity" with all of those attributes. In this sense, saying that a "work" exists is just like proclaiming that a royal flush "exists" in poker, and therefore the royal flush has various attributes. The royal flush does not exist as such, it comes about only through a specified arrangement of the playing cards which in fact, *do* exist. The reason for the arrangement of cards in the catalog was for retrieval. That's all. Over many centuries, librarians discovered through trial and error that people wanted to find the books in their collections in specific ways and they used the arrangements of the cards to provide that. A library would get another version/copy/edition of the Bible and would need to include it intelligently into the catalog. (Compare this to the lack of any intellectual arrangement in that catalog of the Rev. Prince I mentioned in my previous post) It wasn't philosophical, it was totally pragmatic. The philosophical view grew out of the pragmatic basis. But the pragmatic basis should always take precedence over theory. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
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 > 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
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller : 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. I believe that your model may be trying to solve the same problem as FRBRoo: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/frbr_graphical_representation/graphical_representation/work_expression_static.html Have you looked at that model? 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. As a native speaker, none of this feels natural to me. While models may create definitions like "aggregate" and "aggregating" most speakers will not be familiar with those new definitions. It took us all quite a while to start using Work-Expression-Manifestation. 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. It feels to me like a monographic series is a fairly easy case (conceptually). In US libraries the series is often cataloged as a continuing resource, and the individual monographs are cataloged as monographs with a series statement. It is a search on the series name that would bring them together in a display. I don't think that series, in general, is a concept most users pay much attention to, so any duplication between the series record and the individual entries is pretty much glossed over. "Pure" aggregates (a book of essays, e.g.) are also somewhat easy, or at least they were: the record is for the book as a whole, and, if possible, a table of contents note is created. Where that model "fails" is that is often isn't easy to retrieve the book with a search on an individual essay. RDA does not have a data element for contents; there is nothing similar to the MARC 505. Apparently the equivalent in RDA is 27.1.1.3 for "Structured description of the related manifestation", but I can't figure out how those are actually connected to the manifestation being described. (This is where it would be great to have some RDA records mocked-up without using MARC. They could just be text or diagrams.) My concern is about examples like the one I gave, although it may have been imperfect. Assume that the preface is one that is considered important enough to be noted in the catalog record, one that is written by someone famous. You want to include an entry for that preface under the name of Ms. Famous. It's a Work, so you need a Work entry. (Also, you can't indicate a creator without having a Work entity.) You want to indicate that the Work is a part of the Manifestation along with the main text. Adding a new Expression-Work unit is not a clear part/whole relationship (which is what Heidrun is pointing out). And again I'm interested in how this would be displayed to a user, how this set of relationships will be brought together in a display. Perhaps one could treat this secondary "Work" as a related manifestation? However, in FRBR structural terms, all Works are Works, there are no "lesser Works," so there would be no difference between this preface and an essay in a set of essays. AGain, I suggest mocking up examples without using MARC then trying to understand what would be presented to the user. I feel like the gap between RDA in MARC and RDA as RDA is huge and that we have not even begun to explore the latter. Yet we need to understand what it means for users and user interfaces. kc 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 work
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer Sent: January 6, 2012 8:21 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates >Probably, the issue of aggregates is also more related to physical materials >than to virtual resources. Since each >library has been dealing with these >matters for a long, long time, each will have its own methods. Now that FRBR >mandates >that everything we catalog must have separate work and expression >entities (something that cannot be questioned), we see >another example where >the workload and complexity goes up while access stays the same. The entities exist whether they're brought out in the cataloging as significant or not. In RDA, many such entities and their relationships are captured in unstructured descriptions or transcribed elements, without any mechanism for identifiers (separate records, authorized access points, URIs, control numbers, etc.). The current record structure is a towering and tottering amalgamation of elements belonging to different entities and defining different relationships. There is significant scope to decrease workload by consolidating entities and their attributes and relationships once, and maintaining them over time in a more consistent and streamlined fashion. I think there is a great deal of confusion arising from trying to define all of this using our current conventions for constructing and displaying records-- they are not the basis for how one should think about the data that is inherent and ever present in our records, but often blindside us in trying to be consistent in what is being defined and related. I compare the current catalog structure to the Ptolemaic model of the universe-- very elaborate and actually not bad at accurately predicting some phenomena. But it was ultimately based on incorrect initial assumptions that were once considered common sense, and it broke down by not providing the most simple explanations and failing to accommodate new facts. The standard model of quantum mechanics and even Newtonian physics are very good for what they can be applied to. The semiconductors in the computer I'm using are dependent on this model. It's not as if we would put off inventing computers because we're not sure if our model of the universe can accommodate some new phenomena such as dark energy. Likewise the effort behind FRBR will never stop. There will always be ongoing efforts to define the entities and their relationships in the bibliographic universe. Whatever we try to build out of bibliographic data will require that this modeling work be done. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
A few thoughts of my own concerning this issue: First, I suspect this issue is of relatively little interest or use to the public, so this is probably more related to internal management of the collection. Cutter implies as much in the Appendix to his Rules http://www.archive.org/details/publiclibraries00cuttgoog (p. 81), where he discusses tools needed only for the librarians to manage the collections. He mentions the "Tract-catalogue", which is "a list of the tracts contained in bound volumes", or in our terminology, aggregates. He goes on to say, "You may see collections of pamphlets on various subjects by various authors recorded under a made-up heading "Tracts" or "Pamphlets," a style of entry that is nearly useless. The whole of the Prince catalogue of 1846 was made in this absurd way." [Incidentally, I guess he means the "Catalogue of the library of Rev. Thomas Prince", which is indeed a strange one, providing a bizarre listing of the books by size, without any discernible order at all. Completely useless. An example of what Cutter mentions is found on no. 856, p. 58 "Tracts" http://books.google.com/books?id=mjQAYAAJ. I just can't hold myself back from sharing these things! I can't get over that I can do all of this online, and for free!] Probably, the issue of aggregates is also more related to physical materials than to virtual resources. Since each library has been dealing with these matters for a long, long time, each will have its own methods. Now that FRBR mandates that everything we catalog must have separate work and expression entities (something that cannot be questioned), we see another example where the workload and complexity goes up while access stays the same. I also wonder how individual journal articles play into this model. The Working Group report at least mentions mashups but doesn't really discuss them. I don't blame them one bit since working mashups into the WEMI model will probably make dealing with aggregates in the printed world look like child's play. -- *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
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
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
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 : [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 E
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
[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 Quoting Heidrun Wiesenmüller : We've had some discussions here in Germany about the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates: http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf The general feeling was that the report, though laudable as a philosophical endeavor, is not particularly helpful in practical terms. A number of critical points were raised, and a lot of questions remained unanswered. I've now written a short paper on this topic (four and a half pages, but including lots of pictures), which can be downloaded from my Mendeley profile: http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/ (the only entry under "Working papers", at the bottom of the publications list) or directly, using this link: http://tinyurl.com/7scf9rm My main points are that the model proposed by the Working Group - is counterintutive because the aggregating work is on on the same hierarchical level as the individual works - doesn't provide a helpful solution for the relationship between e.g. an article in a collection and a self-archiving copy of this in a repository - leads to rather odd results when applied to e.g. a monographic series Also, an alternative model is proposed. I would be very grateful for any feedback or discussion about the ideas presented in this paper (which, of course, is only a first draft). I'm sending this to RDA-List and AUTOCAT (sorry for cross-posting). Heidrun Wiesenmueller -- - Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Faculty of Information and Communication Wolframstrasse 32, 70191 Stuttgart www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi -- 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
Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working Group on Aggregates
On 1/5/2012 5:06 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: 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. Is "another entry" neccesarily anything more than an identifier? And don't you neccesarily need an identifier for something "of interest" anyhow? As well as ideally relations explaining how it relates to whatever else contains it (knowing an illustration is contained in a particular book is kind of important information, although may not absolutely required in all use cases). I don't think that means you need to create identifiers/relations for any theoretical thing that could _conceivably_ be of interest. It would make more sense to create as needed as things become actually of interest. I am far from convinced that FRBR is incapable of describing what we need, although it may need some fine tuning.