[Crm-sig] Relations between information objects

João Oliveira joaoli13 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 15 19:57:52 EET 2008

Dear Köhler,

a) In FRBRoo, the substance of "F1 Work" is concepts and
the substance of "F2 Expression" is signs. So, the
statements "about parts of works (individual pages or paragraphs
that re-appear in the text of other manuscripts)" should be
related to "F20 Self Contained Expression" instance that could
be nested by "R11 is composed of (forms part of): F20 Self-Contained
Expression" property to the desired level (like paragraph).

b)  I agree that the transcriptionist doesn't change the author's content, but
the result (the transcription) contains additional information
(like the transcriptionist interpretation of visual clues) that is
sufficient to
constitute a new "F46 Individual Work" instance.
So, in your example:
b.1) the physical manuscript is a "F4 Manifestation Singleton"
instance that "R7 is representative manifestation singleton for"
Author's "F2 Expression" instance that "R65 (realises) is realised in"
the "F46 Individual Work" of Author.
b.2) the digital file ("E84 Information Carrier") "P128 carries"
a digital scan ("E36 Visual Item") that "P138 Represents"
the "F4 Manifestation Singleton".
b.3) the transcription file ("E84 Information Carrier") "P128 carries"
a codified "F2 Expression" of manuscript that "R65 (realises) is
realised in" the "F46 Individual Work" of transcriptionist which
"R58 is derivative of (has derivative)" "F46 Individual Work" of Author
(and could be derived from others sources (like editions)).

 According F1 Work Scope Note, "A Work can be either individual
or complex. If it is individual its concept is completely realised
in a single F20 Self-Contained Expression. If it is complex its
concept is embedded in an F21 Complex Work."
So, the author's "F46 Individual Work", transcriptionist's "F46 Individual
Works", editor's "F43 Publication Work" instances are
"R12 (member of) has member" one "F21 Complex Work" instance.

The "F46 Individual Work" and "F20 Self Contained Expression" classes
are two faces of the same coin, related by the R65 property. I think
that the best choice to relate the manuscript with the transcription
would be the "R58 is derivative" property and not R65 because the
result Work of transcriptionist is distinct from the result Work of author.
According Smiraglia et al. (1999), "Any variation in the linguistic content
of a work is considered to result in the creation of a new work. As a
result, two editions with substantially the same text (but not
identical) are considered different works".


João Alberto de Oliveira Lima

Smiraglia, R; Leazer, G. "Derivative Bibliographic Relationships: The Work
Relationship in a Global Bibliographic Database". JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN

On Jan 14, 2008 4:03 PM, Dieter Köhler <d.k at philo.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Firstly, thanks to João Alberto de Oliveira Lima
> and Martin Doerr for pointing me to the FRBRoo ontology!
> "R58 is derivative of (has derivative)" is
> perhaps a good candidate for what I am looking
> for.  However, I am not sure whether the
> intention of this predicate really applies to
> transcriptions.  The definition of the predicate
> states that it applies where one work "modifies
> the content of another" work.  The examples
> suggest that this involves quite some substantial
> modifications.  But a transcription aims to
> preserve the essentials of its source in respect
> to its 'content'.  So it seems to me that "R65 is
> realised in (realises)" might be a better choice.
> That leaves me with two subsequent problems:
> a) I do not only want to make statements about
> complete works, but about parts of works
> (individual pages or paragraphs that re-appear in
> the text of other manuscripts).  However, the
> domains and ranges of most of the FRBRoo
> ontology's predicates are whole "F1 works", "F20
> Self-Contained Expressions", etc.  Would it not
> make more sense to broaden the scope of these
> predicates so that they are applicable to all "E28 Conceptual Objects"?
> b) Often editions do not represent a
> transcription of a single manuscript but a
> standardized text according to some editorial
> principles based on multiple somewhat divergent
> sources.  In this case, "R65 is realised in
> (realises)" would be not accurate enough to
> describe the relation between the standardized
> text and its multiple sources, because the range
> must be broader than a single "F20 Self-contained Expression".
> Regards,
> Dieter Köhler
> _______________________________________________
>  Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20080115/1c0dbd06/attachment.htm 

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list