On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Matthew J. Dovey wrote:
> I have a hunch that life isn't going to be that simple.
That's fine, it never is :)
One thing I didn't put in the previous mail was that the level modifier
could have an open ended set of values so that different communities can
say 'well, that doesn't really fit for us, so we're going to have
> FRBR defines four entities for an object:
> The work (e.g. the Chroniques of Jehan Friossart)
> The expression (e.g. the Chroniques of Jehan Friossary edited and
> The manifestation (e.g. the Chroniques of Jehan Friossary edited and
> The item (e.g. the Chroniques of Jehan Friossary edited and translated
> The fact is that the metadata record is itself is a work and therefore
> the above categorisation is itself applicable to the metadata record
But how useful is it to /search/ this distinction?
> The idea of capturing this in CQL is probably worthwhile but I think we
> need to get in some comments from cataloguers/metadata experts etc.
> rather than half cook something.
For sure. Just wanted to toss something out there for discussion :)
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::. L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I