Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU>:
>
> I _think_ the thing they are modelling with ISTC is most analagous to
> our work rather than our expression, but they may (likely) define that
> thing (which we call work) differently than we do. Or maybe James is
> right and it's most analagous to our expression. It is confusing.
It IS confusing, but my understanding is the same as Jim's - ISTC
identifies a text qua text. Translations are considered "derivations"
and get a different ISTC from the original. (Whether or not something
hangs these together I'm not clear on at the moment, but the
documentation may say.) So that would make them expressions. However,
if we could link together a bunch of expressions, then we would have a
kind of de facto definition of a Work, in the FrBR sense.
kc
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tue Oct 27 2009 - 13:56:13 EDT