Since are talking BIBFRAME, what is the opinion of LC?


What definition of Work will give the best results for the community that actually needs to use this data to actually do something useful?

For example:

·         Cataloging. Is it really to the benefit of catalogers that the Work be split (or not split)?

·         Discovery

·         Work information as used by collection management or acquisition

·         The rest of the world


Shlomo Sanders


Tel: +972-2-6499356

Mobile: +972-54-5246298

[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

[log in to unmask]" alt="cid:[log in to unmask]">



From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: 26 January, 2017 00:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Work record(s) that have Instances with more than one language


FRBR's treatment of a translation as creating a new FRBR expression of a FRBR  work is indeed at variance with the use of the notion of work in copyright law (where a translation is the canonical example of a derivative work in 17 USC 101 and Berne convention). 


There is a good case to be made that translations are composite works consisting of the original content together with the intellectual work of the translator; however there is a case to be made that this approach is not optimal for grouping or discovery. 


The boundary of work and expression became blurred as the IFLA process ground on. It is probably better to unpack and formalize the concepts rigorously, and only then define any simplified models (which is what I think is meant by indecs abstractions being fuzzy and context sensitive).