I agree with Kevin that creation of expression and work records constitutes a kind of classification.
Nancy, as for the ability of computer algorithms to create work records, I imagine it’s possible in broad outlines. I think I like the suggestion that it is only necessary if there is more than one manifestation.
If two manifestations or expressions have the same author (or maybe one in common), a title that is very similar, and almost the same subject headings, it may be safe to assume they probably constitute the same “work.” Is that something like OCLC’s FRBRization
algorithm?
I do wonder if this would have to “tweaked” somewhat by human catalogers. With our “enumerative” subject heading system where individual terms have broader terms, it may not always be possible to tell that the
subject coverage of different editions represents continuity of subjects. A human cataloger can look at the records and say, “oh, that’s a broader term of the subject on the other record, so it’s the same work.” Also, the assignment of subject headings is
sometimes rather subjective. What looks like an important subject to one cataloger may not look like it to another.
Ted Gemberling
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44 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)
So, is it necessary for a cataloger to create a distinct work description or should the metadata scheme simply require descriptive elements that will allow a machine to determine what ‘belongs’ together or should be grouped? And therefore
allow grouping to be flexible across domains (or even just systems) with different grouping philosophies.
Thinking outside the box, if there was no RDA or AACR2 or FRBR, what description from the manifestation/edition in hand could you provide that would help a machine group different editions of the ‘same thing’ together? What if you didn’t
know about some other thing that should be grouped with the thing you’re cataloging?
-Nancy
Nancy J. Fallgren
Senior Metadata Librarian
Cataloging and Metadata Management Section
Technical Services Division
National Library of Medicine
From: Kevin M Randall [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 6:20 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)
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
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]
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