6JSC/AggregatesWG/1
3 August 2015
RDA and FRBRoo Treatment of Aggregates
Submitted by Gordon Dunsire and Deborah Fritz, Chairs, JSC Aggregates Working Group
-
Recent posts
Recent comments
- Kathy Glennan on Expanding RDA 6.29.1.3, Laws Governing More Than One Jurisdiction
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
- Amanda Ros on Adding Controlled Vocabulary to RDA 3.19.6, Regional Encoding, and to the Glossary
Archives
Comment policy
Only current CC:DA members and liaisons are authorized to comment on posts. Others who wish to contribute to CC:DA's discussions are invited to provide input by contacting the Chair, a member of the Committee, or their appropriate liaison.
New CC:DA members and liaisons will be assigned an account for the CC:DA Blog during the month of their initial appointment. For assistance with an account contact the CC:DA Webmaster.
All first-time comments on this site are moderated. We ask that all comments be relevant to the post to which they are directed and maintain professional courtesy.
All categories
Tag cloud
agenda ALA2012 ALA2013 ALA2014 ALA2015 ALA2016 ALA proposal Annual 2012 Annual 2013 Annual 2014 Annual 2015 Behrens Bourassa British Library Canadian Committee on Cataloguing Chair's report corporate bodies Dunsire European Regional Representative Glennan Iseminger JSC JSC rep Lapka Leonard Library of Congress McGrath Midwinter 2012 Midwinter 2013 Midwinter 2014 Midwinter 2016 minutes music Music Working Group (JSC) Myers OLAC PCC Rendall Reser response Robare Rolla RSC Shrader SnyderLinks
I found this proposal very difficult to understand. I think the picture started to get clearer with the graphs. However, I am very fuzzy on what this paper is advocating. It explains how FRBRoo treats aggregates, but then I’m not sure what the authors want to happen after that. What is the RDA community supposed to do?
I agree with Steve
I just found a helpful article by Patrick Le Bœuf, “Transforming FRBR into FRBRoo”: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/Transforming%20FRBR%20into%20FRBRoo.pdf
This provided me with some context for the references to FRBRoo in this AggregatesWG discussion paper.
There are a number of questions that I think the ALA response should address:
1. The role of FRBR-CRM (i.e., FRBRoo, I think!) vs. FRBR-LRM in the future RDA model. Are some of the questions raised in this paper premature since FRBR-LRM isn’t available yet? In other words, what is the underlying FR model for RDA?
2. What differences articulated in FRBRoo (say the varieties of expressions, or modeling editorial modifications such as self-contained expression and individual work) are useful to incorporate into RDA? What distinctions articulated in this paper does ALA see as helpful?
3. Since FRBRoo is not designed to be made visible to catalogers, let alone end-users, how does that impact RDA development? As this paper lets us see, the modeling is very complex and difficult to understand.
Generally, I prefer a simpler modeling of FRBR whenever RDA can accommodate it. While it’s intellectually satisfying to model Castle’s introduction to Emma as a separate work (which it certainly is), the bibliographic relevance of such modelling should be taken into account.
I think RDA should be able to accommodate (but should not mandate) the more complex modeling. If I’m creating “records” or linked data for a Jane Austen archive, then I might want to model Castle’s introduction as a separate work — but most collections owning this “manifestation product type” will not want to do that.
I strongly agree with this. While I understand the need to model the complexity of the bibliographic universe as it exists, I think some of these distinctions are unlikely to be useful in the vast majority of cases. Accommodating the complexity of the theoretical models while providing simple, clear instructions for practical use by real-life catalogers is a difficult wire for the JSC to walk.
“I think RDA should be able to accommodate (but should not mandate) the more complex modeling. If I’m creating “records” or linked data for a Jane Austen archive, then I might want to model Castle’s introduction as a separate work — but most collections owning this “manifestation product type” will not want to do that.”
I agree with Kathy 100% on this.
Do we agree with the notes for further discussion in Appendix A (p. 16 — and appearing throughout Table 1)?
I actually liked this paper, because the more complex modeling is sometimes what is needed, especially when you are dealing with non-bibliographic collections. (I agree that it should be an option, rather than required.) From the art librarian perspective, I was particularly interested in the second example, for an illustrated edition of the novels of Jane Austen. Though it’s hard to tell from the graph, FRBRoo seems to regard the illustrations as an aggregation of separate works, as opposed to FRBR, which basically regards illustrations created for a specific edition of a work as a single entity, comparable to the publication’s “introductory matter” or “commentary”. In my opinion, the FRBRoo view (if I am interpreting the paper correctly) is preferable. Although catalogers don’t usually create separate records for illustrations in a publication, any more than we catalog separately the poems in an anthology, the illustrations have a separate, prior existence as individual creative works, even if they were intended “merely” for illustration. In this respect, they are no different from graphic works created without the intent of being used as illustrations (although many art works end up being used for illustrative purposes as well).
There have been quite a few exchanges on various listserves about illustrations, with catalogers voicing puzzlement and/or discontent with where they fit into the FRBR and RDA models. Maybe the FRBRoo model would help–or at least inspire a future CC:DA paper.
As Steve mentioned, the graphs helped. It’s difficult to discuss, at least for me, and if FRBRoo is not intended to be visible to catalogers that seems like a real impediment for RDA development. As Kathy stated, and Robert agreed, I also prefer simpler modeling and “accommodate” not “mandate”
On page 17 under recording engineer for sound or video (item at end) I find the use of “designer” odd (though it is used for musical director in table 4). Also, it is labeled 2 which only mentions visual work. Is the label 3 (used for recordist) better? Or should the definition for label 2 be expanded?
On the notes in Appendix A:
I agree that there should be a creator role for participants in recorded works. The definition appears to be limited to performances. Performers clearly are creators, but what then to do with people who aren’t performing, but are captured on film? Or is it meant that everyone who is captured on film is considered a performer?
I don’t think I would lump editor of moving image work in the same category with costume designer, lighting designer, production designer, recording engineer, sound designer, special effects provider and visual affects provider.
I am not familiar enough with the role of recordist to comment on that one, but I take it that the analogy with filmmaker is that this person controls and performs all aspects of the creation of the recording.
Where do composers and choreographers associated with moving images fit into this model?
I definitely think that there needs to be some way to compensate for the fact that the proposed roles at the work level will be less specific than the expression level roles. How does that work for the kind of modeling that I would like to do where I want the higher aggregate work and the specific roles?
One small unrelated comment: In the graph on page 9, how does this work if Emma was illustrated by person A and Pride and Prejudice was illustrated by person? Is there some way to connect related self-contained expressions?