Print

Print


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://www.slc.bc.ca/
 ___} |__ \__________________________________________________________