I am not completely keeping up with this discussion, but I do think WEMI is a valuable model for visualizing the bibliographic universe and making our assumptions explicit so they can be examined and put to use or adjusted. Probably FRBR will have to be tweaked and expanded, but I agree with Jonathan that it is the best starting point we have and with Karen that the structured relationships that FRBR defines are its most promising part. It is also clear that certain types of materials will benefit from FRBR far more than other materials, but I don't think this means that FRBR can't be implemented in a way that it doesn't cause an undo burden.
I did want to point out a few things about OLAC's approach to film and FRBR (which may not agree with everyone's). We are trying to take a practical approach. At a theoretical level, the four levels as defined by FRBR make a lot of sense (although if you , for example, include expressions of expression, it would seem you could have even more levels).
However, when we came to recording things on different records, it quickly became apparent that the split between Work and Expression (e.g., things like color, aspect ratio, and costume designer only at the Expression level) was not very workable for us. We therefore settled on a model that uses primarily a Work/Primary Expression (usually the original public release if applicable) record and a Manifestation record. Information like color and aspect ratio of a DVD in hand are meaningless unless you know the original, intended values. So a 1:33 (full screen) DVD Manifestation of a TV program that was originally broadcast in 1:33 and of a film that was in 2.66:1 don't mean the same thing to the purist. The purist would be happy with the former and not with the latter modified version. So we want to record the original, intended value at the Work level so that it can be compared with particular Expressions. We thought it was most practical to have the information that we intend!
ed to re-use for all instances in a single record. It is also in line with the way film reference sources and online databases like IMDB display information.
We also think, from a practical perspective, that most Expression information can be coded in machine-interpretable form in the Manifestation record and a display of Expressions could be generated automatically. Every time a cataloger gets a new Manifestation, this information has to be reevaluated again. Moving image expressions tend to be multi-faceted so looking for an Expression record for the exact combination in hand could be time-consuming and finding expression records for each individual aspect is no better than just encoding the characteristics in the manifestation record.
We don't think a colorized version of a film is a new Work. Rather we would call it a new Expression and record it in the Manifestation record in such a way that it will be obvious to the user that the color of this version has been modified.
It is also not clear to me that the hierarchical approach of choosing a work, then an expression, then a manifestation is always the order that users need. For moving images, for example, users might want to limit to those works available on DVD or usable in English up front.
One way this might be displayed to users can be seen in Figure 8 (near the bottom) at http://kmcgrath.iweb.bsu.edu/MIWgrant.htm. The top facets are the WPE facets and the left facets come primarily from Manifestation records. So the original color or aspect ratio might be at the top and the ones for the available manifestations on the left. These comparison might be more useful in the WPE record view in Figure 9 (very bottom) where the original aspect ratio is given in the body of the WPE record and the available aspect ratios are given on the left. It might also be useful to label the non-original aspect ratio(s) as "modified."
FWIW, CEN (European Committee for Standardization) has also come to the conclusion that it is meaningless to talk of a Cinematographic Work outside of its realization. "The concept of cinematographic work comprises both the intellectual or artistic content and the process of realisation in a cinematographic medium." (http://www.filmstandards.org/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=start&cache=cache&media=cen-tc372_n0167_4th_wd_csh00102-r3_2008-12-03.pdf.)
Kelley McGrath
kmcgrath_at_bsu.edu
Karen Coyle wrote:
I'm not sure that's the case with WEMI, which is why I have trouble
with them as entities. Let's take the example of "color" (or "colour"
as it is called in RDA). You have a resource in which color is
important. You code it ("b&w", "colored", "red"). For a film,
"standard" RDA puts color in the E. Film librarians are saying they
will put color in the W (so a colorized film becomes a different
Work). Meanwhile, you have a manifestion that comes out with a
particular color, and your library considers that an attribute of M.
Do you need to define "color of W", "color of E" and "color of M"? If
you do, then the film archive's record won't match the RDA record. If
instead you have an element "primary color of visual aspect of
resource" (or something like that), then they do.
Believe me, this question of how much you need to tie an element to an
entity is not an easy one to answer. We struggled with this a lot in
interpreting the RDA elements for the Metadata Registry. I'm fine with
"Work title" v. "Expression title" -- those make sense to me. But for
other elements, like color, it doesn't seem to work as well. This is
where WEMI breaks down for me, because it seems to force elements into
boxes artifically. Is it because it mixes up the conceptual
relationships (expression of a work) and physical description? And I'm
not sure what to do with Subject as an *entity*.
All of this being why I would prefer to have a "Resource" entity that
has content and carrier, and a lot of relationships like "is
expression of" and "is translation of" rather that trying to fit
things like "color" into a single box.
Received on Wed Oct 21 2009 - 14:07:39 EDT