LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  March 2016

PCCLIST March 2016

Subject:

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR-LRM: Representative expression

From:

"Laurence S. Creider" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:39:25 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (381 lines)

Has anyone brought up the fact that many Roman statues are copies of Greek
originals, which may also have been copies?  This complicates the issue a
bit.  In such cases, the later statue would be an expression, but it would
be impossible to say that it is representative in many cases because the
original would not survive.  Reality is always more complex than any model
of it.

Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
[log in to unmask]

Pobre Nuevo Mexico! Tan Lejos del cielo y tan cerca de Texas.--Manuel Armijo

On Mon, March 28, 2016 1:00 pm, Reynolds, Regina wrote:
> Interesting discussion about the Roman polychromed statue because it seems
> to exhibit change over time, something the WEMI model does not handle
> well... at all?  The original statue is still the original statue, it
> simply has undergone some changes.  Do changes (deliberate or accidental)
> over time in the original result in a new expression?  We still have only
> one object.  I realize we are entering into the realm of philosophy here
> but it seems hard to avoid in these theoretical discussions. I'm reminded
> of a famous conundrum about the Ship of Theseus that seems to apply to
> serials that can change every element over time:
>
> The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought
> experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all
> of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The
> paradox is most notably recorded by Plutarch in Life of Theseus from the
> late first century. Plutarch asked whether a ship that had been restored
> by replacing every single wooden part remained the same ship.  Excerpted
> from Wikipedia
>
> It would be helpful to establish answers, even if relatively arbitrary
> ones, to some of these speculations.
>
> Regina
>
> Regina Romano Reynolds
> Director, U.S. ISSN Center
> Head, ISSN Section
> Library of Congress
> Washington, DC
> (202) 707-6379 (voice)
> (202) 707-6333 (fax)
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 2:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] FRBR-LRM: Representative expression
>
> Many works of art are lost completely.  If our practice were to accord an
> actual work of art the status of "representative expression" or "original
> expression" of the WEMI "work," we would have to acknowledge that that
> expression is a phantom in the case of lost works of art.  Similarly the
> original expressions of some text "works" appear no longer to exist.
>
> It seems to me reasonable to say that the paintless marble of a previously
> polychromed Roman sculpture is not a "representative" or "original"
> expression, because it is incomplete.  It's certainly an expression,
> though, and has a specific relationship to the original expression that
> could be encoded.
>
> Pete Wilson
> Vanderbilt University
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 9:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] FRBR-LRM: Representative expression
>
>
> One might wonder to what extent a Roman sculpture still represents the
> underlying Work, when it was originally polychromed, as research has
> shown. Could a set of 2-d images showing the original colors, gilding,
> inlay etc. be said to better represent the Work than the pale marble
> object now housed in a museum?  Has time turned it into a different
> Expression of the Work?  At what point did it switch over?  Fun with FRBR.
>
>
>
> Mary Jane Cuneo
>
> Harvard Library
>
> ________________________________
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of
> Heidrun Wiesenmüller
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 5:16 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR-LRM: Representative expression
>
> Liz,
>
> Good point.
>
> But again, if we want to work with the concept of representativity, I
> don't think it can simply be a question of yes or no, as LRM says. It's a
> matter of degree. The original of a Roman marble statue certainly should
> come top in representativity, but an exact plaster copy of the statue
> would still score fairly high marks for representativity. However, a
> scaled down copy of the statue (say only 10 cm high) would be less
> representative, and a photograph even less.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
> On 26.03.2016, Liz OKeefe wrote:
> The application of the concept of representativity might help clarify the
> relationship between art works and reproductions of art works. We
> currently treat a photo-mechanical reproduction of a photograph of a
> three-dimensional object such as a sculpture as just another
> manifestation, along with the original object, of the expression that
> constitutes the original work. It is very hard to imagine how a
> two-dimensional reproduction can adequately represent the sculpture.
> Similarly, a photo-mechanical reproduction of a black and white photograph
> of an abstract painting in shades of blue would also count as just another
> manifestation, along with the original painting.  Again, it's hard to see
> how a reproduction without color can be said to represent a work that
> relies on color to make its artistic point.
> The criteria that could be used to measure representativity for images and
> three-dimensional objects are less clear-cut than for textual material,
> where language would be a fairly reliable indicator, but they could be
> developed. Or it might be simpler to introduce at the work level an
> attribute such as "original object" and then an attribute "reproduction"
> at the expression level for images and three-dimensional objects.
> Liz O'Keefe
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> At first, the idea of the "representative expression" appealed to me a
> lot, but you made me change my mind. I think you're right that it is well
> nigh impossible for older works to identify which expression should be
> seen as the representative one.
>
> The "yes/no" label is too simplistic by far. Rather perhaps, we should
> think in terms of prototype theory
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Prototype-5Ftheory&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=wa5e4Ff3S9hfpnkk_dhoSSFirVypGFFMfa9uadHXjqE&e=>
> i.e. one expression may be closer to the prototypic representative
> expression than another. So it wouldn't be a question of yes or no, but
> rather a matter of degree.
>
> But of course this would be very difficult to implement. And it's probably
> not even necessary. I'd say that, for textual works, the language is the
> main criterion for users. They feel that an expression in the original
> language is more representative for the work than a translation (which
> makes sense as no translation can completely capture the original). But I
> don't think they would consciously distinguish between, say, an expression
> which keeps the author's original punctuation and one which is adapted to
> modern standards of punctuation. Probably, both would be seen as
> representing the work equally well.
>
> So I agree that it would be enough to have something like "language of the
> original expression" as an attribute of the work, and perhaps some similar
> things as well. Actually, this is what we've been doing in Germany for a
> long time: In authority records for works (which before the advent of RDA
> were almost exclusively used in subject indexing), we always recorded the
> original language. There was some discussion whether we were allowed to
> continue this practice under RDA, as "language" is not an attribute of the
> work entity. We dodged this problem by calling this bit of information
> "language of the original expression".
>
> Deciding on the original language of a work (yes, yes, I know, there is no
> such thing; we need to call it "language of the first expression of the
> work") is much easier than deciding what *the* canonical expression is.
>
> If there is opposition to a work attribute "language of the original
> expression" for reasons of theoretic "purity", we could also model this as
> a special kind of relationship between a work and its original expression.
> In RDA-speak, recording the language of the original expression would then
> be a structured description of a related expression.
>
> Heidrun
>
>
>
>
> On 24.03.2016 Robert Maxwell wrote:
> I think I understand the desire for "representative expression" as an
> attribute of the expression entity, but I have questions about its
> presentation in FRBR-LRM. I assume the concept is "the expression most
> people think of when they think of the work," and perhaps is based on a
> desire in the cataloging community to give preferential treatment to and
> record things like the first language a work was expressed in (for textual
> works). The document speaks of this in terms of a "canonical" expression.
>
> That's all well and good, but I'm not sure FRBR-LRM explains very clearly
> how this is supposed to work. It states "The model does not prescribe the
> criteria that must be applied in making the determination of
> representivity" and "Whether an expression is the original expression
> [meaning the representative expression, though the document states earlier
> that the original expression is not necessarily the representative
> expression] of the work will often be a component of this decision-making
> process." A response might be that FRBR-LRM is a model and it's up to
> codes to work out the details. But even a model needs some sort of
> framework.
>
> On the apparent presumption that the original expression is most likely
> the representative expression, for textual and most other kinds of works
> "the" original expression is almost never the expression a librarian (or
> user) has in hand-unless the librarian happens to be holding the author's
> original manuscript, which is a different expression from that contained
> in the first published manifestation since there are always differences
> between the manuscript and publication. In my experience I've probably
> never touched an item containing "the" original expression of any work I
> have cataloged. So talking in terms of "the original expression" might not
> too useful.
>
> To get specific, when describing the work the Iliad, which is the
> representative expression? Well, let's start with Greek expressions, those
> in the language Homer is presumed to have composed the work using. There
> are hundreds if not thousands of published editions of Greek expressions
> of the Iliad. All have different texts. Is one of them going to be chosen
> as the representative expression? How? Or what about one of the thousands
> of manuscripts? These are all different expressions because they all
> contain different texts. Is one of those the representative expression?
> Which one? This situation exists with any author who wrote before the
> modern period, and it exists for many modern writers as well (e.g. James
> Joyce). The idea of picking one "expression" as the "representative
> expression" seems fraught with difficulty. Perhaps it is not prudent to
> introduce this notion into the model until it is clearer how it might
> work, if at all.
>
>
>
> Also, a practical implementation question (which has nothing to do with
> MARC). The attribute "representativity" (LRM-A5) is given as a "yes-no"
> proposition: an expression is either the representative expression or it
> is not. Presumably there can only be one representative expression of a
> work. But in a given system, particularly a cooperative system, how would
> this work out? When a cataloger or other metadata professional is
> preparing a description of a work and expression and having a look in the
> ER database is the "representative" expression going to stand out somehow?
> What would prevent folks from describing more than one expression within
> the same database as the representative expression? One possible response
> could be in a linked data environment it doesn't matter if more than one
> expression is designated as the representative expression. That seems
> dubious to me, but if so, what's the point, then?
>
>
>
> I'd be interested to know if the approach of considering this sort of
> information as attributes of the work was considered by the authors, and
> if so, why they chose the route of representative expression rather than
> attributes of work. The attributes of expression marked with an asterisk
> (which denotes those that are linked to the representative expression)
> could remain as expression attributes, but narrower versions could appear
> as work attributes with names such as "original (or canonical) intended
> audience", "original (or canonical) language", "original (or canonical)
> key", "original (or canonical) medium of performance", "original (or
> canonical) scale". The model as given could be seen as simpler, but it
> could also be reasonably seen as simpler to dispense with the
> judgment-laden decision about which is "the" representative expression and
> instead make these "canonical" attributes attributes of the work. I
> recommend that this might be a better way to go.
>
>
>
> By the way, when a document makes assertions such as "research with users
> indicates that they recognize that works have original or "canonical"
> expressions" (p. 62) it is not unreasonable to expect the paper at least
> to cite (if not summarize) that research.
>
> Bob
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568<tel:%28801%29422-5568>
>
> "We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves
> to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
>
>
>
> You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the  RDA-L
> discussion list.
>
> You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method
> that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your
> subscription at
> http://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ala.org_info_rda-2Dl&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=hKrpshMXiCpYDyJUrSdZQBke302Cfb3NMxiUDJUKzxg&e=>.
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L in
> the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is
> received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be
> unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------
>
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>
> Stuttgart Media University
>
> Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
>
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.hdm-2Dstuttgart.de_bi&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=v7bXvH_CPy-I_who4NMCZW4nSTLW5fvr8nuEO2x995w&e=>
>
> You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the  RDA-L
> discussion list.
> You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method
> that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your
> subscription at
> http://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ala.org_info_rda-2Dl&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=hKrpshMXiCpYDyJUrSdZQBke302Cfb3NMxiUDJUKzxg&e=>.
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L in
> the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is
> received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be
> unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
>
>
>
>
>
> You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the  RDA-L
> discussion list.
>
> You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method
> that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your
> subscription at
> http://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ala.org_info_rda-2Dl&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=hKrpshMXiCpYDyJUrSdZQBke302Cfb3NMxiUDJUKzxg&e=>.
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L in
> the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is
> received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be
> unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---------------------
>
> Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
>
> Stuttgart Media University
>
> Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
>
> www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.hdm-2Dstuttgart.de_bi&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=v7bXvH_CPy-I_who4NMCZW4nSTLW5fvr8nuEO2x995w&e=>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager