[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
Karen,
I think you're right, users usually probably want any
manifestation in the same language. Works are useful, of
course, to associate the same things in different languages as
having been derived from the same original, but I agree that's
probably not what people are (in most cases) looking for.
However, I think when it comes to derivative or related works
(movies, adaptations, etc.), the work level is critical.
A typical library user is probably far less interested in the
fact that the library holds a copy of 'Emma' in Urdu (except
maybe the novelty of it) than they are that the library has a
BBC miniseries, or "Clueless", or a copy of "Jane Fairfax: The
Secret Story of the Second Heroine in Jane Austen's Emma", etc.
This sort of fits into your notion of Work being too
abstract, but that's sort of the level of the relationship
between two completely different endeavors. In some ways the
relationship between works is far more relevant than the
relationship between expressions.
-Ross.
Laura,
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 "
Война и миръ" 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.
kc
On 5/16/13 9:09 AM, Laura
Krier wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
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
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:BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV]
On Behalf Of J. McRee Elrod
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 04:44
To: [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])
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__
\__________________________________________________________
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet