Riley, Jenn wrote:
>> Jean, so if performances are expressions, does that mean that
>> a new arrangement is a different work? Because otherwise you
>> have no place for the performance of a new/different
>> arrangement, right?
>
> Indiana University has done some work applying FRBR principles to music, and we definitely ran up against problems using Expression to define both the arrangement and the performance. It may be that to model the performing arts we'd really need yet another entity. But we wanted to see how we'd do it using FRBR as it was, so we for the most part defined arrangements as new Expressions (not new Works), and assumed Expression/Expression relationships could handle connecting different performances of the same arrangement together. More information (*much* more information) on our thoughts is available from this report: <http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/projects/variations3/docs/v3FRBRreport.pdf>
>
Maybe we're thinking too narrowly, as if there are exactly four "levels"
of bibliographic description, when in fact it could be more complex.
That could be the advantage of working with relationships rather than a
strict hierarchy. So you could have:
A is a performance of Z
C is an arrangement of Z
F is a performance of C
All of these seem to be legitimate statements, although they may not map
precisely to the FRBR Group 1 entities. I think this is an example of
what I've been arguing -- that it's more important to establish the
relationships than it is to fit everything into a set number of levels.
kc
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Wed Dec 05 2007 - 14:05:30 EST