An indecs:abstraction is close to what I have been (slightly loosely) calling an indecs:work. But there is a subtle difference between the two relating to IP rights. HB and PB are manifestations of the same content (the same IP) and are clearly the same work. English and Swedish translations are not the same work, because the have different content (different IP and almost certainly, different IP rights).

Now you are right to the extent that in the <indecs> metadata framework: Principles, model and data dictionary paper I linked to before, an abstraction is defined as "the common denominator between various different performances or manifestations”, and an example given suggests that different editions and translations of Moby Dick are the same work. That is, it suggests that indecs:abstraction = frbr:work.

BUT it also says "The point at which new abstract works or versions of works are identified is […] imprecise, and subject to the principle of functional granularity. This will vary considerably from genre to genre and form to form. Rights are one of the major drivers of functional granularity. For example, if a translation has different rights from the original work (which will almost certainly be the case), it must be identified as a distinct creation.”

In practice, the way <indecs> has been applied has focused on the slightly narrower work, not the subtly broader abstraction. Translations create new indecs:works – that is, Män som hatter kvinnor and Girl with the dragon tattoo are two separate indecs:works (albeit closely related, by means of translation), and they have different IP rights.


Graham Bell

On 25 Jan 2017, at 21:27, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I thought that a FRBR Work roughly corresponded to an indecs Abstraction?