Print

Print



There are situations where we want to be able to distinguish between the work and the expressions of a work.

What other works has this person created (I don’t care what they may have translated or edited)?
What languages has this work been translated into?
Which works have as their subject this other work?

Answering these questions without the level of abstraction provided by Work would seem to be a more complex process.

Kind regards,

Alan

Alan Danskin
Collection Metadata Standards Manager
British Library
Boston Spa
Wetherby
West Yorkshire
LS23 7BQ

Tel: +44(0)1937 546669
mobile: 07833401117

ISNI: 0000 0001 1825 6037
ORCID: 0000-0002-5009-0011




From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 26 January 2017 07:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Work record(s) that have Instances with more than one language

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
CTO
Tel: +972-2-6499356
Mobile: +972-54-5246298
[log in to unmask]
[cid:[log in to unmask]]<http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/>
www.exlibrisgroup.com<http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/>


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: 26 January, 2017 00:44
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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).


******************************************************************************************************************
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk<http://www.bl.uk/>
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html<http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook<http://www.bl.uk/adoptabook>
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
*****************************************************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Think before you print