I always understood that in BIBFRAME
 - Work == WE
 - Instance == MI


Sent from my iPad

On May 12, 2013, at 8:34, "Vinod Chachra" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Tami’s comment below raises two points.

1)      In the implementation of FRBR we had to use “super works” to link works together.  I wonder if this will also be necessary in BibFrame to link related works together. At present the only objects that allows different works to be “linked” together are authorities (subjects and creators).  So do we treat “super works” as a different type of authority?

2)      Based on the BibFrame mappings that I have seen, it appears to me that the “instance” in BibFrame  covers both the “expression” and “manifestation” aspects of FRBR.  Is this correct?

Thanks. Vinod.

Vinod Chachra
President and CEO
VTLS inc.
Blacksburg, VA 24060
Phone 540-449-3000

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Tami Ezra
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [BIBFRAME] Basic question about Work


Does the BIBFRAME ’work’ include different expressions (as in FRBR) – for example different translations? I think not as I would expect a translation to be considered a different “conceptual essence” (albeit a related one) but I haven’t been able to find this stated explicitly.    If I have understood this correctly will it be possible to express links between works – e.g different translations?


Tami Ezra
Senior Business Analyst, URD²
Ex Libris
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>