All

The most recent publishing thinking on FRBR Item (and Manifestation) in
relation to digital content can be found in Le Boeuf's paper presented at
IFLA 2015:

http://library.ifla.org/1150/1/207-leboeuf-en.pdf

See the discussion in Section 2.3 on page 10. Patrick is one of the authors
of the FRBR extension (FRBRoo) to the CIDOC-CRM.

Basically, neither Item nor Manifestation are necessary for the description
of an online resource.

Cheers

Gordon


-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: 13 November 2015 17:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Properties of Item proposal

prd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Lines: 23
X-CMAE-Envelope:
MS4wfHj/D0ijSRjqMhfnRfHPxOP4EIT29S9I79HgggefhoFeI8G+jNkUSXsW+A6vWSmJ5JlvCKJ/
HzJo+DKMS6qajyiMhI2zzO7M6GEiES5IPwfAXpiDDyPS
 a+NoKtyIcQABTgEZZIpEHqYPDfpjgLS5Tio=



>Doesn't a FRBR notion of "item" depend on the possibility of someone in 
>history saying "ouch" when that physical material drops on their foot?

While SLC catalogues e-books which have a print version, much of SLC's work
today is creating MARC records for digital items which never had, nor will
ever have, a physical form which could be dropped on one's foot.

Some seem to feel that the physical precedes the digital.  That is often not
the case.  Most thesis begin as digital, and the print-out is from that
electronic form.  Rip-off publishers are now issuing Wikipedia articles in
print form.  In both these cases, the digital proceeded the print.

If  FRBR "item" assumes a physical form, it is *way* out of date.


   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________