Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> I still believe that the problem is with the concept of the
> manifestation, which is only a "virtual view" of the
> work/expression/items, depending on how you want to define the
> manifestation. This is quite different from the other entities. To me,
> publication information should definitely go into the item record(!),
> while dates should be expanded much more than they are now. Catalogers
> are told to either add dates or ignore dates based on all sorts of
> reasons. All of this could wind up being more accurate than it is now.
Hmm, I'm not seeing this point. The "item" is the individual copy. If
you have two copies of the very same paperback edition of a particular
book---they are two different items. Why does it make sense that
publication information is an attribute of the item, rather than the
manifestation?
Manifestation is simply the entity that we have always cataloged in a
'bib record'. I'm confused as to why you are claiming that there are
conceptual problems with manifestation, or that it's only a "virtual
view" in a way different than the other entities. To me, manifestation
is instead the fundamental entity cataloging has traditionally been
concerned with---to the contrary, I consider work and expression to be
essentially 'virtual views' of sets of manifestations, but manifestation
to be the fundamental entity. (And 'item' is something that generally
only rare-materials people are concerned with----traditional cataloging
has never been concerned with describing the item level, has it?)
Are we understanding FRBR differently?
Jonathan
> The "manifestation view" could be generated from the RDF very efficiently.
>
> James Weinheimer
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Tue Dec 04 2007 - 12:12:02 EST