Dan Matei wrote:
> No... The Work is language-independent (language comes-up only at the expression level). So, the
> "work title" is "conventional" (like the uniform title). Whow knows the title Homer gave to Iliad ?
>
> <citation source="FRBR report">
> The title of the work is the word, phrase, or group of characters naming the work.
> There may be one or more titles associated with a work. If the work has appeared
> under varying titles (differing in form, language, etc.), a bibliographic agency
> normally selects one of those titles as the basis of a “uniform title” for purposes of
> consistency in naming and referencing the work. Other titles under which the work
> has appeared may be treated as variant titles for the work, or in some cases as a
> parallel uniform title. The title of a work that forms part of a larger work may
> consist solely of a number or other generic designation that is dependent on the
> title of the larger work.
> </citation>
>
"RDA, Chapter 6
Works Created After 1500
For works created after 1500, choose as the preferred title the title in
the original language by which the work has become known through use in
resources embodying the work or in reference sources."..."If no title in
the original language is established as being the one by which the work
is best known, or in case of doubt, choose the title proper of the
original edition (see 2.3.3 ) as the preferred title"
But it does allow you to record variant titles in works under some
circumstances:
"If the title recorded as the preferred title for a work has one or more
alternative linguistic forms, record them as variant titles for the work."
"Exception: Record a title appearing on a manifestation of the work as a
variant title for the work only if it differs significantly from the
preferred title and the work itself might reasonably be sought under
that title."
So if all of the linguistic forms of the title can be included in the W,
then we have one common element, although not one that will be unique
(e.g. "Poems" or the dozens of books entitled "World War II").
So I'm still of the mind that unless the WEMI is gathered together as a
record, you're not going to have meaningful links between them. URIs are
a great idea, but we're talking about sharing the data, so somehow we
have to share the URIs. The XC project is struggling with this, I know,
but I don't know how far they've come. In order to share and link data
we have to share and understand identities.
>
> The record for the manifestation is made (or could be made) nowadays directly by the publisher
> (better or worse, but when the user can see the cover at Amazon, it is not so important that the
> statement of resposibility is not transcribed canonically ?
>
>
Don't ask me! Ask the creators of the cataloging rules. I've disliked
the statement of responsibility for a long, long time, but it's still in
RDA, and it's in FRBR. I think it's pretty useless in the form in which
it exists (an undifferentiated string that can't be used for any linking).
> Yes. The large database is called "the web".
>
>
>> When you say:
>>
>>> There will be an expression entity linked from the Work,
>>>
>> via "is realised through" relationship:
>>
>
> Each antity (with a persistent URI), somewere in the cloud !
>
>
I think you have some "and then a miracle occurs" in your algorithm.
Conceptually, I'm with you. But I'm interested in actually creating
linked data from library data, and "somewhere in the cloud" is going to
have to get much much more specific. This is why I worry about WEMI --
because so far I can't actually create that structure in a linked data
way. If you can create it, then I'd really like it if you would use the
registered RDA properties in the Metadata Registry, which are
RDF-compliant in their definitions, and therefore could provide a real
proof of concept.
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 Thu Oct 22 2009 - 14:57:23 EDT