Things are clearer in the cleaned-up version of the section on entities
(dated 21 August 2006 - linked from
http://www.frbr.org/2006/09/30/expression). For music, anyway, the
difference between manifestation and expression is quite obvious, though
in some cases it won't be of much practical importance. From the FRBR
examples of entities, it seems clear that publication information
belongs in manifestation, not expression or item.
Cribbing from one of the FRBR examples, in its cleaned-up-by-IFLA form
, with some additions and spelling-out of abbreviations by me:
* work: J. S. Bach*s Six suites for unaccompanied cello (authority
record)
- expression1: the music as performed by Janos Starker and recorded in
1963 and 1965 (no such record exists now, but the information may be
included in a bib record)
-----manifestation1 of expression1: recordings released on 33 1/3
rpm sound discs in 1965 by Mercury (bib record)
****Item1 of m1 of e1: library's copy of this specific recording
(item record)
-----manifestation2 of expression1: recordings re-released on
compact disc in 1991 by Mercury (bib record)
****Item1 of m2 of e1: Library's copy 1 of this specific
publication of this recording (item record)
****Item2 of m2 of e1: Library's copy 2 of this specific
publication of this recording (item record)
- expression2: the music as performed by Yo-Yo Ma and recorded in 1983
(no such record exists now, but the information may be included in a bib
record)
-----manifestation1 of expression2: recordings released on 33 1/3
rpm sound discs in 1983 by CBS Records (bib record)
*****Item1 of m1 of e2: Library's copy 1 of this specific
publication of this recording (item record)
*****Item2 of m1 of e2: Library's copy 2 of this specific
publication of this recording (item record)
-----manifestation2 of expression2: recordings re-released on
compact disc in 1992 by CBS Records (bib record)
*****Item1 of m2 of e2: Library's copy of this specific
publication of this recording (item record)
In this expanded example, I am looking at the publication only as it is
represented in one library. The list of items could perfectly well have
been expanded further to include copies of that specific publication of
that recording in other libraries or in personal hands.
The issue of where different editions go is addressed in another
example (again from the cleaned-up-by-IFLA version of FRBR):
* w1 Harry Lindgren*s Geometric dissections
- e1 original text entitled Geometric dissections
-------m1 the book published in 1964 by Van Nostrand
- e2 revised text entitled Recreational problems in geometric
dissections ....
------m1 the book published in 1972 by Dover
Here it is clear that IFLA has listed different editions ("original
text" and "revised text") as different expressions.
The problematic issue is that our current bibliographic records have
both expression and manifestation information in them. Separating out
what belongs to which is the knotty point. We have focused on
manifestations. The expression information is there but has not been
seen as something apart from a manifestation. Really, it is the
expression that is the "virtual view" - there is no such publication as
the expression. The manifestation is the publication (by a particular
publisher, at a particular date).
--
Jean Harden, Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
PO Box 305190
Denton, TX 76203-5190
(940) 565-2860
jharden_at_library.unt.edu
>>> On 12/4/2007 at 9:37 AM, in message <394201708183140_at_mail.aur.edu>,
Weinheimer
Jim <j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu> wrote:
> Martha Yee wrote:
>
>> 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. ...
> Again, this is very important work.
>
> I agree that the expression/manifestation/item is messed-up in FRBR,
and
> while edition statements should certainly go into expression, I'm not
so sure
> that publication information should as well. ....
>
> 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.
>
> The "manifestation view" could be generated from the RDF very
efficiently.
>
> James Weinheimer
Received on Tue Dec 04 2007 - 12:32:17 EST