 |
 |
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