Print

Print


I think that art historians would consider every copy a work on its own,
albeit one that was derived from/inspired by the earlier works.

Getting back for a moment to the relationship between a photograph of a
sculpture and the sculpture itself, would it help to regard the
relationship as a subject relationship instead of a reproductive
relationship? The photograph, a work in itself, depicts the art work, as it
might depict a living person or an animal or a physical location.(That
assumes that  FRBR(LRM) considers "ofness" as well as "aboutness" as a
subject relationship; not sure if this is the case).

Liz O'Keefe



On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Laurence S. Creider <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Has anyone brought up the fact that many Roman statues are copies of Greek
> originals, which may also have been copies?  This complicates the issue a
> bit.  In such cases, the later statue would be an expression, but it would
> be impossible to say that it is representative in many cases because the
> original would not survive.  Reality is always more complex than any model
> of it.
>
> Larry
> --
> Laurence S. Creider
> Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
> University Library
> New Mexico State University
> Las Cruces, NM  88003
> Work: 575-646-4756
> Fax: 575-646-7477
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Pobre Nuevo Mexico! Tan Lejos del cielo y tan cerca de Texas.--Manuel
> Armijo
>
> On Mon, March 28, 2016 1:00 pm, Reynolds, Regina wrote:
> > Interesting discussion about the Roman polychromed statue because it
> seems
> > to exhibit change over time, something the WEMI model does not handle
> > well... at all?  The original statue is still the original statue, it
> > simply has undergone some changes.  Do changes (deliberate or accidental)
> > over time in the original result in a new expression?  We still have only
> > one object.  I realize we are entering into the realm of philosophy here
> > but it seems hard to avoid in these theoretical discussions. I'm reminded
> > of a famous conundrum about the Ship of Theseus that seems to apply to
> > serials that can change every element over time:
> >
> > The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought
> > experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all
> > of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. The
> > paradox is most notably recorded by Plutarch in Life of Theseus from the
> > late first century. Plutarch asked whether a ship that had been restored
> > by replacing every single wooden part remained the same ship.  Excerpted
> > from Wikipedia
> >
> > It would be helpful to establish answers, even if relatively arbitrary
> > ones, to some of these speculations.
> >
> > Regina
> >
> > Regina Romano Reynolds
> > Director, U.S. ISSN Center
> > Head, ISSN Section
> > Library of Congress
> > Washington, DC
> > (202) 707-6379 (voice)
> > (202) 707-6333 (fax)
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
> > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 2:11 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] FRBR-LRM: Representative expression
> >
> > Many works of art are lost completely.  If our practice were to accord an
> > actual work of art the status of "representative expression" or "original
> > expression" of the WEMI "work," we would have to acknowledge that that
> > expression is a phantom in the case of lost works of art.  Similarly the
> > original expressions of some text "works" appear no longer to exist.
> >
> > It seems to me reasonable to say that the paintless marble of a
> previously
> > polychromed Roman sculpture is not a "representative" or "original"
> > expression, because it is incomplete.  It's certainly an expression,
> > though, and has a specific relationship to the original expression that
> > could be encoded.
> >
> > Pete Wilson
> > Vanderbilt University
> >
> > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane
> > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 9:40 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] [RDA-L] FRBR-LRM: Representative expression
> >
> >
> > One might wonder to what extent a Roman sculpture still represents the
> > underlying Work, when it was originally polychromed, as research has
> > shown. Could a set of 2-d images showing the original colors, gilding,
> > inlay etc. be said to better represent the Work than the pale marble
> > object now housed in a museum?  Has time turned it into a different
> > Expression of the Work?  At what point did it switch over?  Fun with
> FRBR.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mary Jane Cuneo
> >
> > Harvard Library
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of
> > Heidrun Wiesenm├╝ller
> > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 5:16 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR-LRM: Representative expression
> >
> > Liz,
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > But again, if we want to work with the concept of representativity, I
> > don't think it can simply be a question of yes or no, as LRM says. It's a
> > matter of degree. The original of a Roman marble statue certainly should
> > come top in representativity, but an exact plaster copy of the statue
> > would still score fairly high marks for representativity. However, a
> > scaled down copy of the statue (say only 10 cm high) would be less
> > representative, and a photograph even less.
> >
> > Heidrun
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26.03.2016, Liz OKeefe wrote:
> > The application of the concept of representativity might help clarify the
> > relationship between art works and reproductions of art works. We
> > currently treat a photo-mechanical reproduction of a photograph of a
> > three-dimensional object such as a sculpture as just another
> > manifestation, along with the original object, of the expression that
> > constitutes the original work. It is very hard to imagine how a
> > two-dimensional reproduction can adequately represent the sculpture.
> > Similarly, a photo-mechanical reproduction of a black and white
> photograph
> > of an abstract painting in shades of blue would also count as just
> another
> > manifestation, along with the original painting.  Again, it's hard to see
> > how a reproduction without color can be said to represent a work that
> > relies on color to make its artistic point.
> > The criteria that could be used to measure representativity for images
> and
> > three-dimensional objects are less clear-cut than for textual material,
> > where language would be a fairly reliable indicator, but they could be
> > developed. Or it might be simpler to introduce at the work level an
> > attribute such as "original object" and then an attribute "reproduction"
> > at the expression level for images and three-dimensional objects.
> > Liz O'Keefe
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Heidrun Wiesenm├╝ller
> > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > At first, the idea of the "representative expression" appealed to me a
> > lot, but you made me change my mind. I think you're right that it is well
> > nigh impossible for older works to identify which expression should be
> > seen as the representative one.
> >
> > The "yes/no" label is too simplistic by far. Rather perhaps, we should
> > think in terms of prototype theory
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Prototype-5Ftheory&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=wa5e4Ff3S9hfpnkk_dhoSSFirVypGFFMfa9uadHXjqE&e=
> >
> > i.e. one expression may be closer to the prototypic representative
> > expression than another. So it wouldn't be a question of yes or no, but
> > rather a matter of degree.
> >
> > But of course this would be very difficult to implement. And it's
> probably
> > not even necessary. I'd say that, for textual works, the language is the
> > main criterion for users. They feel that an expression in the original
> > language is more representative for the work than a translation (which
> > makes sense as no translation can completely capture the original). But I
> > don't think they would consciously distinguish between, say, an
> expression
> > which keeps the author's original punctuation and one which is adapted to
> > modern standards of punctuation. Probably, both would be seen as
> > representing the work equally well.
> >
> > So I agree that it would be enough to have something like "language of
> the
> > original expression" as an attribute of the work, and perhaps some
> similar
> > things as well. Actually, this is what we've been doing in Germany for a
> > long time: In authority records for works (which before the advent of RDA
> > were almost exclusively used in subject indexing), we always recorded the
> > original language. There was some discussion whether we were allowed to
> > continue this practice under RDA, as "language" is not an attribute of
> the
> > work entity. We dodged this problem by calling this bit of information
> > "language of the original expression".
> >
> > Deciding on the original language of a work (yes, yes, I know, there is
> no
> > such thing; we need to call it "language of the first expression of the
> > work") is much easier than deciding what *the* canonical expression is.
> >
> > If there is opposition to a work attribute "language of the original
> > expression" for reasons of theoretic "purity", we could also model this
> as
> > a special kind of relationship between a work and its original
> expression.
> > In RDA-speak, recording the language of the original expression would
> then
> > be a structured description of a related expression.
> >
> > Heidrun
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 24.03.2016 Robert Maxwell wrote:
> > I think I understand the desire for "representative expression" as an
> > attribute of the expression entity, but I have questions about its
> > presentation in FRBR-LRM. I assume the concept is "the expression most
> > people think of when they think of the work," and perhaps is based on a
> > desire in the cataloging community to give preferential treatment to and
> > record things like the first language a work was expressed in (for
> textual
> > works). The document speaks of this in terms of a "canonical" expression.
> >
> > That's all well and good, but I'm not sure FRBR-LRM explains very clearly
> > how this is supposed to work. It states "The model does not prescribe the
> > criteria that must be applied in making the determination of
> > representivity" and "Whether an expression is the original expression
> > [meaning the representative expression, though the document states
> earlier
> > that the original expression is not necessarily the representative
> > expression] of the work will often be a component of this decision-making
> > process." A response might be that FRBR-LRM is a model and it's up to
> > codes to work out the details. But even a model needs some sort of
> > framework.
> >
> > On the apparent presumption that the original expression is most likely
> > the representative expression, for textual and most other kinds of works
> > "the" original expression is almost never the expression a librarian (or
> > user) has in hand-unless the librarian happens to be holding the author's
> > original manuscript, which is a different expression from that contained
> > in the first published manifestation since there are always differences
> > between the manuscript and publication. In my experience I've probably
> > never touched an item containing "the" original expression of any work I
> > have cataloged. So talking in terms of "the original expression" might
> not
> > too useful.
> >
> > To get specific, when describing the work the Iliad, which is the
> > representative expression? Well, let's start with Greek expressions,
> those
> > in the language Homer is presumed to have composed the work using. There
> > are hundreds if not thousands of published editions of Greek expressions
> > of the Iliad. All have different texts. Is one of them going to be chosen
> > as the representative expression? How? Or what about one of the thousands
> > of manuscripts? These are all different expressions because they all
> > contain different texts. Is one of those the representative expression?
> > Which one? This situation exists with any author who wrote before the
> > modern period, and it exists for many modern writers as well (e.g. James
> > Joyce). The idea of picking one "expression" as the "representative
> > expression" seems fraught with difficulty. Perhaps it is not prudent to
> > introduce this notion into the model until it is clearer how it might
> > work, if at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, a practical implementation question (which has nothing to do with
> > MARC). The attribute "representativity" (LRM-A5) is given as a "yes-no"
> > proposition: an expression is either the representative expression or it
> > is not. Presumably there can only be one representative expression of a
> > work. But in a given system, particularly a cooperative system, how would
> > this work out? When a cataloger or other metadata professional is
> > preparing a description of a work and expression and having a look in the
> > ER database is the "representative" expression going to stand out
> somehow?
> > What would prevent folks from describing more than one expression within
> > the same database as the representative expression? One possible response
> > could be in a linked data environment it doesn't matter if more than one
> > expression is designated as the representative expression. That seems
> > dubious to me, but if so, what's the point, then?
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd be interested to know if the approach of considering this sort of
> > information as attributes of the work was considered by the authors, and
> > if so, why they chose the route of representative expression rather than
> > attributes of work. The attributes of expression marked with an asterisk
> > (which denotes those that are linked to the representative expression)
> > could remain as expression attributes, but narrower versions could appear
> > as work attributes with names such as "original (or canonical) intended
> > audience", "original (or canonical) language", "original (or canonical)
> > key", "original (or canonical) medium of performance", "original (or
> > canonical) scale". The model as given could be seen as simpler, but it
> > could also be reasonably seen as simpler to dispense with the
> > judgment-laden decision about which is "the" representative expression
> and
> > instead make these "canonical" attributes attributes of the work. I
> > recommend that this might be a better way to go.
> >
> >
> >
> > By the way, when a document makes assertions such as "research with users
> > indicates that they recognize that works have original or "canonical"
> > expressions" (p. 62) it is not unreasonable to expect the paper at least
> > to cite (if not summarize) that research.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > Robert L. Maxwell
> > Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> > 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> > Brigham Young University
> > Provo, UT 84602
> > (801)422-5568<tel:%28801%29422-5568>
> >
> > "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.
> >
> >
> >
> > You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the  RDA-L
> > discussion list.
> >
> > You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method
> > that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your
> > subscription at
> > http://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ala.org_info_rda-2Dl&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=hKrpshMXiCpYDyJUrSdZQBke302Cfb3NMxiUDJUKzxg&e=
> >.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L
> in
> > the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is
> > received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be
> > unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> >
> > Stuttgart Media University
> >
> > Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
> >
> > www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.hdm-2Dstuttgart.de_bi&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=v7bXvH_CPy-I_who4NMCZW4nSTLW5fvr8nuEO2x995w&e=
> >
> >
> > You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the  RDA-L
> > discussion list.
> > You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method
> > that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your
> > subscription at
> > http://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ala.org_info_rda-2Dl&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=hKrpshMXiCpYDyJUrSdZQBke302Cfb3NMxiUDJUKzxg&e=
> >.
> > To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L
> in
> > the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is
> > received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be
> > unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You have received this message because you are a subscriber to the  RDA-L
> > discussion list.
> >
> > You can change the email associated with your subscription, the method
> > that you receive RDA-L posts, and other settings by logging into your
> > subscription at
> > http://lists.ala.org/info/rda-l<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.ala.org_info_rda-2Dl&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=hKrpshMXiCpYDyJUrSdZQBke302Cfb3NMxiUDJUKzxg&e=
> >.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> with UNSUBSCRIBE RDA-L
> in
> > the subject line. Leave the body of the email blank. Once the email is
> > received you will be automatically unsubscribed. Please note you will be
> > unsubscribed for the address from where the email originated.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
> >
> > Stuttgart Media University
> >
> > Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
> >
> > www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi<
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.hdm-2Dstuttgart.de_bi&d=CwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=xjnKFWLxdNe6Yc-jKmSf_Xa8MuXr5qLVd-2CxvqHbHU&m=ANxMTLMrOv-KFZ5aKmm4gK0AGMFKNew6yRG3EOJ8euw&s=v7bXvH_CPy-I_who4NMCZW4nSTLW5fvr8nuEO2x995w&e=
> >
> >
>