But what about a new edition with a new afterword, or with 'typesetting'
errors corrected? Would that be the same ISTC or another one? I think
we'd call it a new expression, in either case.
But you're probably right, and the implicit non-formalized entity that
gets an ISTC assigned is most analagous to our 'expression', although
not defined in exactly the same way we might, which is to be expected.
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 27 2009 - 14:03:35 EDT