Thanks. At the moment, the library world doesn't often distinguish 
between hard copy and paperback editions (those often go on the same 
record) but it is possible that this will change in the future. Keeping 
them together is/was a short-cut, allowing libraries to not create 
duplicate records that would look the same to users. A big issue is how 
to avoid showing users the same author and title for the same text over 
and over. The assumption is that users want to know if the TEXT is 
available (in the ISTC sense), and in the format (hard copy, ebook, 
etc.) that they prefer.

To give a concrete example, this San Francisco Public Library record has 
ISBNs for both the hard copy and the paperback:

The holdings information does not distinguish between them, so unless 
you go to the shelf you don't know which it is (and my gut tells me that 
rarely is there such a strong preference that one would not check out 
the book if the preferred one isn't there).

One option with a BIBFRAME or FRBR-ized catalog is that manifestations 
will not be the dominant display, but that users could be directed from 
the expression to the holdings - in other words, from the ISTC level to 
the shelf, or directly to the download. Also, a choice between 
manifestations of the same text may not be available in small libraries, 
which would not usually buy more than one version of a text unless it is 
in great demand, so in a sense they are already serving users at an 
expression level.

I, personally, would like to see less emphasis on the manifestation in 
library catalogs, but I haven't studied whether the data elements to 
serve users at an expression level are currently defined at that level. 
That would be an interesting study.


On 1/25/17 11:54 AM, Graham Bell wrote:
> No, it is the same as in the library world. Paperback, hardcover and 
> Ebooks are different manifestations of the same work. They all get 
> different manifestation identifiers (ISBNs) but they would in 
> principle carry the same work ID (an ISTC, if anyone implemented it). 
> You only create a new work if there is significant adaptation of the 
> content - revision, abridgement, translation etc.
> Manifestations and items in indecs and frbr are essentially identical, 
> and work in indecs is roughly equivalent to a frbr expression.
> Graham
> Graham Bell
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 25 Jan 2017, at 16:28, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> 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 <>> 
>>> 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 
>>> <> 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:
>>>> 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:
>>>>              <>
>>>>                              a                             bf:Work ;
>>>>       hasTranslation     
>>>>    <> .
>>>> and
>>>>       <>
>>>>         a                             bf:Work ;
>>>>       isTranslationOf     
>>>>    <> .
>>>> 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):
>>>>              <>
>>>>                              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> <>
>>>> <>
>> -- 
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask]
>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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