Print

Print


You've said some very interesting things, Ted. It seems to me that the determination of the "work" and "expression" is actually a variation on the act of classification—it is an intellectual exercise for the purpose of grouping things together that "belong together" and keeping things apart that are "different". The actual objects being described are the manifestations; works and expressions are merely abstractions from the evidence in the manifestations. The cataloger describes the resource, and then figures out what other resources may be "essentially the same thing" and declares the similar resources to embody the same "work". OCLC's FRBRization algorithms do essentially the same task, but of course at a level removed from the resources themselves (inspecting the metadata) and without the full benefits of human intelligence (since the cost of that would be astronomical).

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University
www.library.northwestern.edu<http://www.library.northwestern.edu>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
847.491.2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gemberling, Ted P
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 4:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Should a Work description be generated for every cataloged resource? (Question from the PCC SCS/LDAC Task Group on the Work Entity)

“[Works] come not from what some person had in mind in the past, but what the person intended.”

It occurred to me, after sending that, that it might seem like an odd distinction. When one “has something in mind,” he often “intends” something. What I was trying to oppose is the idea that the content of works is set in the past. The FRBR-LRM text says “The description of serials is particularly difficult to model, because it does not limit itself to a description of the past …” What I am suggesting is that this is fairly true of monographs, as well.

I suppose you could even say that my email was a work that needed another “expression” as I realized it wasn’t clear.

When a singleton is created or published, of course it is a work in the broadest sense. But a single bibliographic record may be all that is necessary to describe it.

Ted Gemberling

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gemberling, Ted P
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 12:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Should a Work description be generated for every cataloged resource? (Question from the PCC SCS/LDAC Task Group on the Work Entity)

Ed and everyone, this is a response to the first question.

It’s interesting that near the end of the FRBR-LRM document, the authors admit that there are difficulties modelling the serial work in FRBR. As they say on page 67, “the ‘commonality of content’ that defines a serial resides in both the publisher’s and the editor’s intention to convey the feeling to end-users that all individual issues do belong to an identifiable whole, and in the collection of editorial concepts (a title, an overall topic, a recognizable layout, a regular frequency, etc.) that will help convey that feeling.” They also go on to say the same can be said of monographs (the 6th edition of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species does not contain quite the same concepts as the first edition).

What this suggests to me is that maybe we need to realize all Works are aspirational in a way. They come not from what some person had in mind in the past, but what the person intended. That has a necessary reference to the future. As the intention is fleshed out in Expressions and Manifestations, the content often changes.

To me, this suggests that the primary cataloging object has to remain the Manifestation. Though I realize that if we are not treating it as a Manifestation of a Work, it’s not really a Manifestation but an edition. I think I agree with Ed’s suggestion that Work and Expression records only need to be created when they are helpful.

I remember reading some years ago some documentation by VTLS that talked about how FRBR is particularly helpful for bound withs, something I encounter quite a bit as a special collections cataloger. I believe they said that if you have Work records, you only need to link them to your bibliographic record for the bound volume, and that will take care of the author and subject information. You don’t have to, particularly, agonize about how to describe the subject content of the whole volume, especially when the subjects of the bound works vary quite a bit. That certainly does seem to show the value of Work records. But once again, it seems like it’s mostly a matter of how to make cataloging work more economical, not really an insight into the real nature of information resources.

What do you think?

Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library