Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
>
> Ok, let's talk alternatives. I'm afraid I might get a bit technical
> here, but as far as I'm concerned, the FRBR best feature is to take an
> important step out of record keeping and into basic epistemology,
> specifically representialism. However, I'm very much with Karen on the
> strange distinctions between entities and properties and how FRBR
> seems to be in a world of their own, but communication and a bit of
> tweaking could work that out. (However, this isn't the first time this
> has been raised)
>
> One of those things wrong is identity as an entity ...
What Alex describes and suggests is all very impressive.
Alas, we have ever less time to devote to any single item. Cataloging
as a process needs to be quick. To get things done in the quantities
that we have at hand, we ought to do some weighing of priorities.
Collocation by work and expression is just not a very widely and
frequently needed task at the end-users end! (Or prove me wrong.)
To cut things short, what I suggest is that we
1. catalog manifestations (as usual)
2. look upon the work and expression aspects the same way as we do
on subjects. For many works, there ought to be subject headings
already in the LC authority file. Apply these and refine the rules
to create them to include more aspects of expressions. A new
indicator in MARC is all that's needed to say the entry
means "work" or "expression".
This way, the access to the work and manifestation level becomes
a part of subject access. We need no additional records for them
and no linking techniques. Unless you want to represent subject
headings by URIs which would of course make a lot of sense in the
context of VIAF. MARC can accomodate that, no need for new formats.
>
> Very quickly we run into the epistemological problem of Twain. Is the
> identity "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" identical? Is there a
> relationship between the two, or are they the same? And what happens
> when we add the lesser known "Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass" to the mix?
> (Feel free to try to solve the puzzle)
>
> For bibliophiles these are inherently important puzzles to solve, and
> the first thing with FRBR that strikes me is that it doesn't even try
> to handle this,
No, FRAD does that, not FRBR themselves. And FRAD ought to become a
facette of a broadened subject access methodolody in the sense described
above.
B.Eversberg
Received on Thu Oct 22 2009 - 02:58:47 EDT