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

Indecs expression is a bit confusing as it is a Davidsonian  event but does
not make this obvious in the name. It seems to merge several different
concepts that are more individuated in e.g. FRBRoo, which differentiates
performance works, performance plans (expressions) with performances
(activity). These are distinct from recording events, which  fix a
performance in a tangible form.

Indecs Manifestation and Item match up to FRBR-ER pretty closely, with both
Manifestations appearing to be physical (or at least perceptible) things.
This is problematic for both models, as it requires that items be parts of
the manifestation. This was not the intended semantics for FRBR (per Pat) ,
and is fixed in FRBRoo -  manifestations  can be seen as either a set of
traits exhibited by default in the Items that exemplify them, or as
equivalence classes of items that are considered to be examples of the same


On Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 2:55 PM Graham Bell <[log in to unmask]> 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 Bell

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Jan 2017, at 16:28, Karen Coyle <[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).


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:


 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 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.

On 24 Jan 2017, at 15:22, Denenberg, Ray <[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        <> .



        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.


*From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [
mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
*[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

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


Tel: +972-2-6499356

Mobile: +972-54-5246298

[log in to unmask]

<image001.jpg> <>

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