I've often wondered about the library use case for a frbr:Work. (It 
makes more sense to me in other contexts.) Imagine a user going to a 
library looking for "War and Peace." In most cases, the person wants the 
book in a specific language, which may or may not be the original 
language. In a library serving English language speakers presenting the 
user with " ????? ? ????" probably isn't ideal. Nor would most users 
want to see all of the different translations, even though that is, 
under some circumstances, bibliographically relevant.

It seems to me that the frbr:Expression level is closer to the user view 
than the Work. The Work, to my mind, is so abstract as to be fine as a 
topic of discussion ("I'd read War and Peace but it's just too long"), 
but not a "thing" that people seek to use.


On 5/16/13 9:09 AM, Laura Krier wrote:
> Is a translation really a different "conceptual essence"? I don't 
> think of a translation as a separate work. But being that BIBFRAME 
> doesn't distinguish between Works and Expressions of a Work (which I 
> think a translation would be), it looks like a translation would have 
> to be considered a different Work. What barriers might that introduce 
> to aggregating resources, or discovering resources?
> Laura
> -- 
> Laura Krier
> Metadata Analyst
> California Digital Library
> 510-987-0832
> On May 11, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Shlomo Sanders 
> <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> Does the BIBFRAME 'work' include different expressions (as in FRBR) - 
>> for example different translations?
>> Translations may be considered a different "conceptual essence" 
>> (albeit a related one) but I haven't been able to find this stated 
>> explicitly.
>> Eill it be possible to express links between works - e.g different 
>> translations?
>> Thanks,
>> Shlomo
>> Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask] <http://LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>] On 
>> Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
>> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 04:44
>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: [BIBFRAME] What's an instance?
>> I tend to think of a Bibframe instance as an edition, but the 
>> Bibframe instance seems to be something different, mainly in 
>> envisioning more than one instance per edition, but occasionally more 
>> than one edition per instance, using ISBN as the determining factor.
>> Often different bindings of copies of an edition have separate ISBNs, 
>> but Bibframe says one instance per ISBN.  Since binding is normally 
>> not mentioned in description (using "description" in its usual sense, 
>> not to mean abstract or summary), how would these instance 
>> descriptions differ from each other for the trade, library, deluxe, 
>> paperback bindings?  One could have four Bibframe instances for one
>> AACR2 or RDA edition.
>> Often editions are published simultaneously by two or more 
>> publishers, but Bibframe says an instance can only have one 
>> publisher.  Sometimes these simultaneous publications have both or 
>> more publishers given in the resource.  If both or more publishers 
>> appear, surely both or more should be included in one instance 
>> description, even if each publisher assigns its own ISBN?  Each ISBN 
>> describes the same resource; the only
>> difference is who sells it.   An instance description with one
>> publisher and one ISBN would not match any existing bibliographic 
>> item, each item having more than one.
>> Occasionally publishers repeat an ISBN in difference editions.  Are 
>> these two dr more editions to be one instance?  Which edition would 
>> be described?  How does one handle both in the same collection with 
>> only one instance description?  Rarely the same ISBN can appear in 
>> editions of different works.
>> ISBN is not a safe litmus for determining editions (instances).
>> How do yearbooks or multivolume sets, with an ISSN for the serial, an 
>> ISBN for the set, but individual ISBNs for the serial and set 
>> volumes, fit into this?  (Utlas had 021 for analytical ISBNs of 
>> volumes within a serial or set, a feature we still miss.)  While for 
>> ebrary, we must create a record for each volume of a mutlivolume set 
>> or a serial, because they can have only one 856$url per record, that 
>> is not something we would like to do for all.  It would clutter up 
>> catalogues.  BTW, can an instance record have multiple PDF URLs?
>> If these volumes with their own ISBNs are separate instances, are 
>> each instances of a separate work, or are all volumes instances of a 
>> single set or serial work?  Instance records for these volumes would 
>> seem to have more in common with MARC item records, than AACR2/RDA 
>> MARC manifestation records.
>> The Bibframe provisions seem to me not to accord with messy 
>> bibliographic reality.
>>   __       __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
>>  {__  |   /     Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://
>>  ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet