Jim Weinheimer wrote:
...
I see that you have publication information in the expression record. FRBR
does not have publication information as attributes of the expression, but
of the manifestation. As you know, I have serious problems with FRBR's
concept of manifestation, but I don't know if I believe that the publication
info should go into the expression. (Although I realize this is the
practical method for catalogers to determine different expressions/editions,
as given in LCRI 1.0).
Concerning the point below, coding a name as "AACR2 form" is not entirely
correct since 99% of the time, AACR2 forms of name are based on the way a
person's or corporate body's name appears on the first item cataloged with
cross-references made from any other forms that come into the catalog later.
Therefore, it is very possible that different catalogs, both following
AACR2, could come up with different forms of the same name. Forms of name
are linked to those used in a particular database, so something like "LCNAF"
form would be more correct.
Jim Weinheimer
***********************
reply from Martha:
Thanks for your comments, James...
I have argued elsewhere (in the FRBR-ization paper that I cited in my
initial posting) that the FRBR tables do not correspond to the FRBR entity
definitions. If you are going to define expression as any change in content
that does not lead to a new work, and manifestation as mere change in format
or distribution information, it is absurd to map the statement '2nd rev.
ed.' to manifestation. It is clearly a statement about expression. We must
be willing to trust publishers' statements on title pages unless proven
erroneous. The Yee cataloging rules represent, among other things, my
attempt to remap the elements of a bibliographic description to the correct
FRBR entities, thereby keeping the original FRBR definitions but discarding
the flawed mapping tables at the back of FRBR. There is the question,
though, of whether catalogers always have enough information to map all data
elements to either expression or manifestation. I suspect that the original
designers of the Anglo-American cataloging rules judged that catalogers did
not always have enough information, so limited their collocation work to the
work level (with main entries).
The "AACR2 form" in the original post from Joseph Hollister referred to the
fact that I used LCNAF numbers as key identifiers, so you are right that
"LCNAF form" would be more accurate.
Martha Yee
myee_at_ucla.edu
Received on Tue Dec 04 2007 - 08:38:27 EST