Print

Print


Graham, out of curiosity, what is the status of a hard copy book vs. a 
paperback of the same text? It looks like they would be separate works, 
based on your chart. If so, that is a different approach from the 
library world, where the content, not the container, determines the 
work, and even the expression (and in current data, even the 
manifestation).

kc



On 1/25/17 1:35 AM, Graham Bell wrote:
> This is interesting, in that it aligns BIBFRAME more closely with the 
> <indecs <http://www.doi.org/factsheets/indecs_factsheet.html>> 
> conceptual model often used in the commercial world.
>
> In contrast to FRBR, <indecs> tends to model publications with three 
> entities, abstraction, manifestation and item, rather than the 
> well-known four part FRBR WEMI stack. In particular, see section /8. 
> Creations/ in the <indecs> Principles, model and data dictionary 
> <http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf> paper. 
>  In essence, an indecs:abstraction is often called an indecs:work, and 
> is very close to a frbr:expression, and a frbr:work is best understood 
> in an <indecs> context as a network or directed graph of inter-related 
> indecs:works. The relationships between indecs:works are events like 
> translation, compilation, abridgement and so on. There are other 
> events, like typesetting a book, recording an audiobook or a song, 
> that relate works to their manifestations.
>
>     [NB there is often a terminological confusion here, because in
>     <indecs>, these events are called expressions.]
>
>
> So we have:
>
> ———————————————————————————————-
>
>    work
>      |
>  expression    ≈ work        (ISTC)
>      |   |
> manifestation  = manifestation   (ISBN)
>      |   |
>    item        = item
>
> FRBR    <indecs>
>
> ———————————————————————————————-
>
> In <indecs>, works are often related to other works, and the 
> relationships indicate a change in the underlying content. Somebody 
> applies some intellectual effort to derive one work from another (e.g. 
> translating it to create a second work, revising it to create a second 
> edition, abridging it, adding illustrations to create an illustrated 
> edition, adapting it to create a play, compiling separate poems or 
> short stories into an anthology /etc/). The IP encompassed in the work 
> is modified because someone does some /work/ on it. And because the 
> relationships are a directed graph, you can tell the difference 
> between a translation of an abridgement and an abridgement of a 
> translation. Of course, somewhere in the graph of works is ‘the 
> original’ which is not derived from any other work, a kind of 
> 'ur-work' on which the others are all directly or indirectly based – 
> /Män som hattar kvinnor/ in a graph that also contains /The girl with 
> the dragon tattoo, Les Hommes qui n'aimaient pas les femmes /and 
> /Verblendung – /but they are a group of related peers, rather than the 
> ur-work having any special position in the graph.
>
>
> In practical terms, <indecs> is used as the underlying basis for 
> metadata standards like ONIX (books, e-books), EIDR (films and TV), 
> DDEX (recorded music), and for the DOI framework and the ISTC identifier.
>
>
> Graham
>
>
>
> Graham Bell
> Executive Director, EDItEUR
>
>
> Tel: +44 20 7503 6418
>
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be 
> privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the 
> intended recipient, please inform the sender and delete this 
> e-mail immediately. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed 
> or copied without the sender's consent. We cannot accept any 
> responsibility for viruses, so please scan all attachments. The 
> statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the 
> author and do not necessarily reflect those of the company.
>
> EDItEUR Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in 
> England no 2994705. Registered Office: United House, North Road, 
> London N7 9DP, UK. Website: http://www.editeur.org
>
>
>> On 24 Jan 2017, at 15:22, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> The question, I think, comes down to this: If there is a Work, in a 
>> given language – English for example -   and that work gets 
>> translated into a different language – French, for example;  are the 
>> English and French versions a single Work or separate Works.  (Is 
>> this a reasonable reformulation of the question?)
>>
>> They are two different Works. They can be related to each another via 
>> property bf:hasTranslation, and its inverse, bf:translationOf.   So 
>> for example English is the original language of Guns of August and 
>> there is a French translation:
>>
>>              <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustEnglish>
>>
>>                              a                             bf:Work ;
>>
>>       hasTranslation     
>>    <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustFrench> .
>>
>> and
>>
>>       <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustFrench>
>>
>>         a                             bf:Work ;
>>
>>       isTranslationOf     
>>    <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustEnglish> .
>>
>> I was hoping to come up with a real-life BIBFRAME example from our 
>> conversion, but unfortunately this idea doesn’t work well based on 
>> marc records, because although the marc record may tell you that 
>> there is a French translation, it doesn’t tell you where it is, and 
>> some sort of matching algorithm has to come into play.   We haven’t 
>> quite gotten that far yet, which is why I cannot produce a real 
>> example yet.
>>
>> However, as a placeholder, say you have the English (original) and 
>> you simply want to express that there is a French translation (but 
>> you don’t yet know where):
>>
>>              <http://bibframe.example.org/work/gunsOfAugustEnglish>
>>
>>                              a                             bf:Work ;
>>
>>       hasTranslation        [rdfs:label “French translation”  ] .
>>
>> Please note that I have only considered the simple case where there 
>> is an original, and a translation of the original.   There are 
>> possible complicating factors:  There may not be one single 
>> “original” language; or there may be, but a particular translation 
>> isn’t translated directly from the original but rather from an 
>> intermediate translation.   I don’t have answers to these situations.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of 
>> *[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 16, 2017 8:26 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* [BIBFRAME] Work record(s) that have Instances with more 
>> than one language
>>
>> Which of the following is valid (either, both…)?
>>
>> ·If a Work has 2 Instances with different languages then there can be 
>> one Work record with 2 Instances and both languages should be in the 
>> Work record
>>
>> ·If there are 2 Instances with different languages then there must be 
>> 2 Work records each with one Instance.
>>
>> Shlomo Sanders
>>
>> CTO
>>
>> Tel: +972-2-6499356
>>
>> Mobile: +972-54-5246298
>>
>> [log in to unmask] 
>> <x-msg:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> <image001.jpg> <http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/>
>> www.exlibrisgroup.com <http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/>
>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600