I appreciate this analysis of our current predicament.  Karen's conclusion
indicates that we'd benefit by focusing on "services we want the work to
provide in the future" and I agree wholeheartedly.

From my perspective—at a public library where customer demand frequently
prompts us to acquire a single popular title in five formats (print,
large-type, ebook, cd-book, and eaudio)—one helpful service would be to
synchronize series and subject access points.  The same could apply to cast
and crew for DVD and Blu-Ray versions of a single movie.  In terms of
Karen's outline, I see this as closing the gap between "work description"
and "work entity" as much as possible.


David Pimentel ~ Senior Cataloging and Metadata Librarian
*Denver Public Library* ~ 720.865.1123 <(720)%20865-1123>

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> All,
> Due to having been on some committees that were tasked with attempting
> to define "the work" I have some thoughts on that topic which I wrote up
> as a blog post:
> In summary, I define four different meanings/aspects:
> * Work-ness - a general sense that there are works inherent in creation
> * work-description - what library cataloging does to describe works
> * work decision - creating an authoritative identity for the work in the
> form of a author/uniform title/edition heading
> * work entity - the data thing defined in FRBRer, BIBFRAME, RDA/RDF as
> "the work"
> I welcome comments and discussion.
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]
> m: +1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600