it is my understanding of FRBR that resources can be related to each other _either_ in the dimension of W-E-M-I (these are the primary relationships), _or_ in other dimensions, among them time (former / later), and aggregation (whole of / part of), etc. (these are the secondary relationships).
So according to FRBR a resource has a work level, and an expression level, and a manifestation level, and an item level. And in addition a resource can have a part-whole relationship on the work level, and / or it can have a part-whole relationship on the manifestation level.
It wold be no clean description to say "These parts are manifestations of this work." Instead of thas, you should say: "There is a work, which consists of two smaller works. And both these smaller works are manifested by two manifestations." Or you should say: "There is a work, which is manifested by one manifestation. And this one manifestation consists of two smaller manifestations."
The first model can be used if the part is sufficiently independent, so that it can be seen as a work. On the other hand, if the part is weak, it has no work character. Sometimes the title can be a criterium for that. As a rule of thumb a MARC 490 (+ 800-830) is a good candidate for a part-whole relationship on the work level.
Roughly the same is true for works and instances in BIBFRAME. They are related to each other vertically, and in addition to that a bf:Work can consist of two or more bf:Works, and a bf.Instance can consist of two or more bf:Instances.
In general I prefer to distinguish between the conceptual / non-physical entities (FRBR: work and expression; BIBFRAME: work), and the physical entities (FRBR: manifestation and item; BIBFRAME: instance and holding). And a physical thing can't be a part of a conceptual / non-physical thing.
Maybe this clarifies your question.
German National Library
Office for Data Formats
D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
Telephone: +49 (0) 69 1525-1709
Telefax: +49 (0) 69 1525-1799
mailto:[log in to unmask]
*** Reading. Listening. Understanding. German National Library ***
Von: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Senan Kiryakos
Gesendet: Montag, 13. Oktober 2014 07:00
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: [BIBFRAME] Conceptuality of Work in Multi-volume Resources
I'm wondering how conceptual the level of a BIBFRAME Work is when dealing with a multi-volume
work (e.g. Manga), vs. the conceptual level work in FRBR.
In FRBR, the entire title / series of a manga would be represented through the Work entity and
individual volumes within that series would fall in the Manifestation / Item layers.
In BIBFRAME, however, is it correct to say that an entire multi-volume series would be represented by
Work, with individual volumes within that series being represented by Instance? For example, "One
Piece" as the Work, with "One Piece: Volume 1", "One Piece: Volume 2" being the Instances? I believe
this is correct and that each individual volume would not be represented through an Instance and not
as a Work, but I'd like to make sure this is correct.
I think part of my confusion is coming from current cataloguing practices for manga in libraries,
where the entire series (in my example, the Work level) is given a record with individual volumes being
identified via a 999 field within the record for that series (rather than each Instance/volume receiving
its own record).
Apologies if this is a rather basic question, though the clarification help would be appreciated as
discussion on multi-volume resources in BIBFRAME is a little hard to come by.