I agree that FRBR is not some sort of Platonic ideal. I however don't agree that it doesn't really work for serials or other aggregate works such as series. It is not the same as the model we've used in the past under AACR2 (if there was in fact a model) but that doesn't mean it doesn't work, it's just different. I don't believe that the FRBR model is perfect, but I am convinced that the FRBR model is an improvement over the previous organizing principles, whatever they may have been. I'm advocating for seeing if our resources can in fact fit into the model rather than saying "this isn't the way we've always organized things, there must be something wrong with the model." Saying this isn't the same as saying we should try to strait-jacket round pegs into square holes. I'm just not convinced that the pegs are in fact not the same shape as the holes.
Hope you're having a good time in Germany.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 2:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: order of language and publisher qualifiersThe FRBR model is not a law of nature. It is an idealized conceptual model. It works pretty well for things like a novel created by a lone artist working in his garret. Others have shown that it doesn't really work for serials.
I know it's a heresy, but I submit that a series is not really a work, and it serves no purpose to try to treat it as one. A series exists at the level of the manifestation. Elements like the publisher and the numbering are important attributes in identifying a series.
We shouldn't treat FRBR as a straight-jacket. Series that contain the complete works of an author are a small minority of cases, but sometimes edge cases illustrate the limits of a model. A user who is looking all the volumes in the Arden Shakespeare does not want to have to look through all the entries for Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Works. If it is important for us to identify the parts of a series, we need to be able to identify the series uniquely. By the same token, we don't need multiple identifiers for the same series just because it contains text in multiple languages.
(Over and out from Frankfurt, Germany)
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of McDonald, Stephen [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 13:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] order of language and publisher qualifiers
I think you misunderstood me. I mentioned that a critical edition might actually be considered an aggregate, but that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about an ordinary new edition of a single Work. A new edition, with new cover art, new publisher, and new introduction, is not considered a new Expression—it is a Manifestation of the same Expression as the original edition. So why should a new edition of a series, with new cover art, new publisher, and new introduction, be considered a new Expression of the original series? Why should that get a new series authority record, when you wouldn’t make a new authority record for a new edition of a single Work? Why should a new edition of a series be considered a new aggregate work if the only differences are publisher, cover art, and maybe introduction? What makes that an aggregate work?