Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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.
They can be legitimate statements despite those relationships not being
the 'canonical' Group 1 to Group 1 relationships! FRBR does not limit
you to one and only one kind of relationship only between one Group 1
entity and it's immediate hiearchical superior!
In the above list, A is an expression. Z is a work. C is an expression.
F is also an expression. Expression F may be related to Expression C
with a "is a performance of" relationships----that relationship may or
may not be in FRBR right now, but should be! FRBR certainly allows you
to draw relationships between one expression and another, or one work
and another, or one exprsesion and a work other than it's parent work,
etc.
The specific list of relationships in the FRBR document (which may not
include 'is a performance of', but may include some more generic
category of this), the FRBR document all but admits was just an initial
sketch of what relationships were possible, and was not meant to be
definitive or complete. That we haven't actually done work to polish off
this list of relationships in the past ten years---is a pity.
Jonathan
>
> 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
> ------------------------------------
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Wed Dec 05 2007 - 17:05:41 EST