Ah, you're right. Current practices make it difficult or impossible to
tell (in an automated fashion) whether a uniform title authority record
represents a Work, an Expression, or a Manifestation, and exactly what
'headings' correspond to which as well.
Jim, does this help you at all see why _some_ change of our cataloging
practices is required? What we do is just too ambiguous for the machine
world.
Jonathan
Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Jakob Voss wrote:
>
>> Right. The only usable work identifiers that I know of are LibraryThing
>> Work identifiers and some Wikipedia articles about works
>>
> I'd consider LC uniform title authority record IDs to be work
> identifiers. No?
> </snip>
>
> I would consider them primarily more as expressions e.g.
> 100 1_ |a Shakespeare, William, |d 1564-1616. |t Sonnets. |l German & English. |k Selections
> 400 1_ |a Shakespeare, William, |d 1564-1616. |t Dreissig Sonette
> 400 1_ |a Shakespeare, William, |d 1564-1616. |t Das ist die feinste Liebeskunst
> 400 1_ |a Shakespeare, William, |d 1564-1616. |t Liebessonette
> 670 __ |a Shakespeare, W. Dreissig Sonette, c2002.
> 670 __ |a Das ist die feinste Liebeskunst, 2004.
> 670 __ |a Liebessonette, 1999.
> Here, the 100 $a$t is the work, the rest is an expression.
>
> This one includes some manifestation information:
> 130 _0 |a Bible. |p O.T. |p Genesis. |l Catalan. |s Clascar. |d 1914
>
> although this gets into the problem of defining an expression in terms of changes in the manifestation, a long continuing practice.
>
> But I'm not sure if the work here is the 130 a, or 130 a,p or 130 a,p,p. Probably the latter, and then the rest is the expression.
>
> Jim Weinheimer
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 10 2009 - 11:06:16 EST