LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  July 2017

BIBFRAME July 2017

Subject:

Re: Discussion of "the work", or The Hive at "Work"

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:18:13 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (212 lines)

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

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

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
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager