Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
> << But if "A is a performance of Z" means that Z is a work, doesn't "F is a
> performance of C" mean that C could also be a work? >>
>
> Says who? Are YOU saying that? Why? Is it convenient to say that?
Jonathan, it was a question, so no, I'm not saying it, I'm asking. See
the question marks? And no, this doesn't have anything to do with items
or Jim's idea of cataloging at the item level.
Sheeesh.
Plus I'm really surprised that you think we should go ahead and base our
work on FRBR even if we are finding it unworkable. If a model doesn't
work in practice, you change the model. As I've said before,[1] I think
FRBR works better if we focus more on the relationships between all of
the entities and less on the WEMI hierarchy. I also think that the
relationships are more valuable to users than the WEMI boxes. That
doesn't mean throwing away FRBR and going back to Panizzi's rules. It's
not all or nothing -- FRBR should be seen as a working model to be acted
on, not gospel to be defended. As we work with it, it may change some
and it may change considerably. So our discussion of the complex
relationships in music cataloging, and a number of previous articles and
discussions about FRBR and serials, are a way of testing that model
against real situations. This is not a threat to FRBR, it's what will
make FRBR "work" if it can work, even if it must change to do so.
kc
[1] http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/11/use-of-hierarchy-as-organizing.html
--
-----------------------------------
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 - 18:39:19 EST