The ISTC overlaps best with Expression, but is unlikely ever to be a
particularly good fit (e.g., "Works that are entirely graphic, with no
text, are not eligible for ISTCs."). The ISTC is all about publisher
needs: rights management, tracking revenue across editions, etc. That
doesn't mean the ISTC might not be useful for library systems, but like
the other identifiers we have to work with, it will never map well to
the FRBR model nor will it be much influenced by the thinking around
that model. (Publishers have no interest in the Work.)
http://www.myidentifiers.com/multimedia/pdfs/ISTC_overview_ISQv21no3.pdf
-Kristin
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> 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 - 14:28:03 EDT