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 Wiesenmüller
> <[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 Wiesenmüller
> <[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=>
>