Steven, very interesting. Would you be so kind as to copy this as a
comment on the blog post? That keeps the discussion together, and gives
me a place where I won't lose your contribution.

Thanks so much for the colorful and flavorful analogy,
kc

On 7/16/17 11:13 PM, Steven Clement wrote:
> Hi Karen et al.
> 
>  
> 
> I don’t know if this will be of any use whatsoever, but I may as well
> share my little musing which some time ago I constructed after finding
> my copy of “The Fable of the Bees” after RDA was instituted at my workplace.
> 
>  
> 
> This email isn’t about Mandeville’s work (which was originally just a
> short-“ish” poem but then much expanded to a book, which is an
> interesting FRBR exercise in itself), but about a thought-experiment I
> devised using analogies of the hive for libraries and their holdings,
> and honeycombs for all the works/titles and their relationships. 
> 
>  
> 
> I imagined something a little bit like Karen’s post but in a different
> sort of order.  Here it is, odd as it is:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.       If there is something like a work which is created
> (Intellectual Entity, Concept), you have intellectual “honey” to put in
> the “hive.” This to my mind equates roughly to Karen’s *“Work-Ness”*
> 
> 2.       A cataloguer then creates a bibliographic “cell, ”which I
> imagined to be the title and its format (not really a “Work Entity”, I
> confused this with expressions/manifestations, and I see David’s
> DVD/Blu-Ray example here) --- this is where my little analogy falls over
> – do cataloguers make the “right decisions” or just “necessary decisions”?
> 
> 3.       Next I imagined a matrix of attributes/elements in the FRBR
> sense, and gave them general names borrowed from orienteering – I see
> this to be somewhat like Karen’s *“Work description”*
> 
>  
> 
> --description (well, description)
> 
> --direction (access points / horizontal, vertical relationships)
> 
> --details (subject)
> 
> --distance (/i.e./ extent, size, etc.)
> 
> --designation (/i.e./ language of work, etc.)
> 
>                 ---------And added one of my own,
> 
> --demarcation (uniform title, authorities, authorised access points) --
> determines which other cells would connect (like *“Work
> Decision”*?)---and from here other cells can connect to our cell making
> relationships, etc.
> 
>  
> 
> 4.       The result: A bibliographic container for the *“Work-Entity,”*
> represented by the hexagonal structure of a cell in the honeycomb—which
> would embody the final output of the cataloguer.
> 
>  
> 
> Karen notes under her “Work-ness”   ‘First there is the concept that
> every resource embodies something that could be called a "work" and that
> this work is a human creation. The idea of the work probably dates back
> as far as the recognition that humans create things, and that those
> things have meaning. There is no doubt that there is "work-ness" in all
> created things’
> 
>               
> 
>                 I agree completed, and obviously I have conflated FRBR &
> RDA and other things in my little though-experiment description above. 
> It was some time ago But, as I mentioned, my intention was to use
> Mandeville’s bees to describe human output (like he did).
> 
>  
> 
> On reading Karen’s excellent contribution, my thinking (my “Up Shot”) is
> that as cataloguers the work is a problem for at least two reasons:  We
> (the cataloguers) seek to show things as we see them in a Bibliographic
> World (in our “hives” we make the “honey” fit into a “cell”!) and how
> creator/author, etc. may actually view their work (never mind the public
> at this point, sad as it is to say).
> 
>  
> 
> All I can suggest, in light of my failure above, is to urge that work on
> “What is a Work” tease out a way to either unite, or better
> differentiate i) Work-ness (“concept that every resource embodies
> something that could be called a "work" and that this work is a human
> creation”), and ii) Work-Decision (“this is the situation when a data
> creator determines whether the work to be described needs a unique and
> unifying entry within the stated cataloging environment to bring
> together exemplars of the same work that may be described differently”)
> so that it is clearer in cataloguing?
> 
>  
> 
> Or will, in the words of Sappho, we have neither the honey, nor the bee
> when all is said and done?
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Steve Clement
> 
> *Steve Clement*| Senior Collection Description Librarian
> 
> *National Library of New Zealand | The Puma Tauranga o Aotearoa*
> 
> Direct Dial: +64 4 470 4494 | 58-78 Molesworth Street, Thorndon,
> Wellington 6011
> 
> PO Box 12340, Thorndon, Wellington 6144, New Zealand |
> www.natlib.govt.nz <http://www.natlib.govt.nz/>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *David Pimentel
> *Sent:* Saturday, 15 July 2017 7:12 a.m.
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Discussion of "the work"
> 
>  
> 
> I appreciate this analysis of our current predicament.  Karen's
> conclusion indicates that we'd benefit by focusing on "services we want
> the work to provide in the future" and I agree wholeheartedly.
> 
>  
> 
> From my perspective—at a public library where customer demand frequently
> prompts us to acquire a single popular title in five formats (print,
> large-type, ebook, cd-book, and eaudio)—one helpful service would be to
> synchronize series and subject access points.  The same could apply to
> cast and crew for DVD and Blu-Ray versions of a single movie.  In terms
> of Karen's outline, I see this as closing the gap between "work
> description" and "work entity" as much as possible.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> David Pimentel ~ Senior Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
> 
> *Denver Public Library*~ 720.865.1123 <tel:(720)%20865-1123>
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> Due to having been on some committees that were tasked with attempting
> to define "the work" I have some thoughts on that topic which I wrote up
> as a blog post:
> 
> http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-work.html
> 
> In summary, I define four different meanings/aspects:
> 
> * Work-ness - a general sense that there are works inherent in creation
> * work-description - what library cataloging does to describe works
> * work decision - creating an authoritative identity for the work in the
> form of a author/uniform title/edition heading
> * work entity - the data thing defined in FRBRer, BIBFRAME, RDA/RDF as
> "the work"
> 
> I welcome comments and discussion.
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net
> m: +1-510-435-8234 <tel:%2B1-510-435-8234>
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
> 
>  
> 
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600