[Crm-sig] Suggestion to FRBRoo

João Oliveira joaoli13 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 21 03:57:31 EET 2007


Dear Mr. Stead,

Thank you for your response.

1)
I agree with you when you say that the "P2 has type E55 type" property
could be used to represent some cases of multiple appellations,
like acronyms or alternative linguistic forms. However, there are other aspects
that need to be considered.
Cataloguing rules aren't uniform concerning personae and corporate
name changing issues, and this was stated on FRAD document
(see a FRAD excerpt at the end of this message - "Note 1" ).

My proposal is a suggestion to accommodate the FRAD concepts in FRBRoo
using the same design pattern applied to FRBRer Work harmonization, in
a way that respects the different cultural visions stated at FRAD document.
To deal with the concepts that were under the entity FRBRer "Work",
the FRBRoo creates a Work hierarchy with several classes, each one dealing with
one specific aspect of Work. Using the same reasoning, as the FRAD Person
definition is broader than FRBRoo Person definition (see definitions
on "Note 2"), I think it's necessary to create a Persona class as well as
a Family class to deal with these specific cases.
The Complex Actor is a set whose members are Actors. This class deals
with the evolution of an Actor on time (FRAD Sequence Relationship)
or Actor subordination issue (FRAD Hierarchical Relationship). See below
an example where Complex Actor was needed to model the FRAD sequence
relationship:

Individual Actor 1: España. Ministerio de Agricultura
[ after some time, the Ministry attribution changes and the name changes to: ]
Individual Actor 2: España. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación

Complex Actor: Set of IA1 and IA2

The Complex Actor plays to Actor entity the same role of Complex Work to Work:
enable the collocation function.


2)
I agree with you concerning the Choral Work example, i.e, the 'form
of work' could be a cultural issue. However the FRBRer quotation talks
about another issue: it is not the classification of one Individual
Work according one (or more) supertype classification scheme, but the
limits of one Work in relation to another derived work (see: "the line of
demarcation lies between one work and another may in fact be viewed
differently from one culture to another"). If you read the two following
paragraphs of the FRBRer final report (see "Note 3"), you will see that
the discussion is about if one derived Work constitue a new work, or a
new expression of the same work (using the old FRBRer terminology).
So, I think we have two options: cut the FRBRer citation (as my previous
suggestion) or adapt the FRBRer text to talk about the Work constraint
supertype and not Work derivation.

Regards

João Alberto de Oliveira Lima



/////////////////////////////////////
>> Note 1 <<
(from FRAD - A Conceptual Model, 2007-04-01, p.4)
Under some cataloguing rules, for example, authors are uniformly
viewed as real individuals, and consequently specific instances of
the bibliographic entity person always correspond to individuals.
Under other cataloguing rules, however, authors may be viewed
in certain circumstances as establishing more than one bibliographic
identity, and in that case a specific instance of the bibliographic
entity person may correspond to a persona adopted by an
individual rather than to the individual per se.
Similarly, most cataloguing rules require the establishment of a
new authorized form for a corporate body each time the body
changes its name.  In those cases, each specific instance of the
bibliographic entity corporate body corresponds to the associated
body only in relation to the period of time during which the body
used that particular name.  Consequently, the body as such (e.g.,
a legally incorporated enterprise, a government agency, a musical
group, etc.) may be viewed as two or more instances of the bibliographic
entity corporate body.

/////////////////////////////////////
>> Note 2 <<
(from FRAD - A Conceptual Model, 2007-04-01)
"Person
An individual or a persona established or adopted by an individual or
Person group."

(from FRBRoo - 0.8.3)
F8 Person (FRBRoo 0.8.3)
Equal to: E21 Person

(from CIDOC CRM 4.2)
E21 Person (Cidoc CRM 4.2)
Scope note: This class comprises real persons who live or are
assumed to have lived.
Legendary figures that may have existed, such as Ulysses and
King Arthur, fall into this class if the documentation refers
to them as historical figures. In cases where doubt exists as to
whether several persons are in fact identical, multiple instances
can be created and linked to indicate their relationship.
The CRM does not propose a specific form to support reasoning
about possible identity.

/////////////////////////////////////
>> Note 3 <<
"For the purposes of this study variant texts incorporating revisions
or updates to
an earlier text are viewed simply as expressions of the same work
(i.e., the variant
texts are not viewed as separate works). Similarly, abridgements or enlargements
of an existing text, or the addition of parts or an accompaniment to a musical
composition are considered to be different expressions of the same work.
Translations from one language to another, musical transcriptions and
arrangements, and dubbed or subtitled versions of a film are also
considered simply
as different expressions of the same original work.
By contrast, when the modification of a work involves a significant degree of
independent intellectual or artistic effort, the result is viewed, for
the purpose of
this study, as a new work. Thus paraphrases, rewritings, adaptations
for children,
parodies, musical variations on a theme and free transcriptions of a musical
composition are considered to represent new works. Similarly, adaptations of a
work from one literary or art form to another (e.g., dramatizations, adaptations
from one medium of the graphic arts to another, etc.) are considered
to represent
new works. Abstracts, digests and summaries are also considered to represent new
works."


On Nov 18, 2007 6:57 PM, Stephen Stead <steads at paveprime.org> wrote:
> 1] Having had a quick look at this it reeks of complexity, exceptions and
> different user communities having different practices and "rules". Therefore
> my first reaction is to suggest that this is dealt with using "P2 has type
> E55 Type".
> I am also sure that this is sometimes the confusion of different
> appellations for the same thing with different things each having their own
> identity.
> 2] I think that the cultural division of works may well have an impact on
> their constraining supertype. For example a choral work may be viewed as a
> textual work and a musical work and thus have different constraining
> supertypes.
> My thoughts
> SdS
>
>
> Stephen Stead
> Tel +44 20 8668 3075
> Mob +44 7802 755 013
> E-mail steads at paveprime.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On
> Behalf Of João Oliveira
> Sent: 16 November 2007 13:23
> To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> Subject: [Crm-sig] Suggestion to FRBRoo
>
> Following, two suggestions for the next FRBRoo meeting.
>
> Suggestion 1) Use the Work Individual/Complex/Container Design Pattern to
> Actors
>
> Current:
> E39 Actor
> ---- F77 Corporate Body (=E74 Group)
> ---- F8 Person (=E21 Person)
>
> Suggestion:
> E39 Actor
> ---- Fnn Individual Actor
> -------- F77 Corporate Body (=E74 Group)
> -------- F8 Person (=E21 Person)
> -------- Fnn Persona
> ---- Fnn Complex Actor
> ---- Fnn Container Actor
> -------- Fnn Collective Actor
> ------------  Fnn Family
> ------------  Fnn Collective Persona
>
> The Complex Actor class deals with the evolution of Actor entity on
> time. For example, one Corporate Body evolves in time like one Work.
> The Container Actor class deals with collective actors, like Families
> and collective Personas as in the following examples from FRAD:
> (personas established or adopted jointly by two or more
> individuals (e.g., Ellery Queen — joint pseudonym of Frederic Dannay
> and Manfred B. Lee); and personas established or adopted by
> a group (e.g., Betty Crocker)).
>
>
> Suggestion 2) Change the R1 Scope Note
> Current R1 Scope Note:
> This property associates an instance of F1 Work with an
> instance of E55 Type that any expression of that work should also have
> for it to be identified as an expression of the same work.
> The nature of what constitutes a "constraining supertype" varies according
> to cataloguing rules and conventions. As the entity-relationship version of
> FRBR puts it, "The concept of what constitutes a work and where
> the line of demarcation lies between one work and another may in fact be
> viewed differently from one culture to another. Consequently the
> bibliographic
> conventions established by various cultures or national groups may
> differ in terms of the criteria they use for determining the boundaries
> between one work and another." (FRBR Final Report, p. 16).
>
> Suggestion:
> This property associates an instance of F1 Work with an
> instance of E55 Type that any expression of that work should also have
> for it to be identified as an expression of the same work.
> The nature of what constitutes a "constraining supertype" varies according
> to cataloguing rules and conventions.
>
> Justification:
> The "form of work" is not a cultural issue. The FRBR Final Report citation
> is about Work limits (scope) and not Work form. The Work limits are a
> culture issue.
>
> Regards,
>
> João Alberto de Oliveira Lima
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list