Is there a risk that we are taking FRBR a bit too seriously?
Wasn’t the original idea to model user tasks in order to decide how to present data in the most user-friendly way? But FRBR has already turned into an ontology
and risks turning into a metaphysics or a theology, where we worry about giving any entity too little status or too much, although some of the entities we are dealing with, such as distinct intellectual/artistic ideas untainted by any form or medium, perhaps
do not exist at all – they are just useful abstractions.
Trying very hard to do justice to every kind of intellectual/artistic input tends to result in a proliferation of ‘works’ which is confusing and therefore
counter-productive. (I rather think that some of LC’s original guidelines on compilations and collaborations tended that way and had to be withdrawn.) Better to be a bit simplistic and prioritise organising data in whatever way is most useful to most people
for most purposes, favours efficient system design, and does not make excessive demands on pressurised and low-paid inputters of data. Most good simplifications work by selective misrepresentation.
Best wishes,
Bernadette
*******************
Bernadette O'Reilly
Catalogue Support Librarian
01865 2-77134
Bodleian Libraries,
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.
*******************
That covers exactly what I want to know.
I may not agree with the treatment in RDA (I didn't agree with it in AACR2, being based on a narrow view of editorial roles) but as long as I understand it and can explain it to students that's all that really concerns me.
Here are my comments on this afternoon's discussion. Thanks to you all for your readiness to grapple with some tricky examples.
A creator is responsible for the cretation of a work which is,
"A distinct intelllectual or artistic creation"
The relationship designator "editor" cannot be used in relation to a work, as an "editor" contributes to an expression. However, someone who is described as an editor in the SOR , may be deemed
to be an author if the extent of their revision or adaptation is judged to result in the creation of a new work. This is a question of judgment and will depend on the evidence in the resource itself or obtained by comparing both resources. Pragmatically
we will consider new editions to be new expresssions rather than new works unless there. is compelling evidence to the contrary. See also 6.27.1.5
The relationship designator "editor of compilation " also denotes a relationship to an expression, not a work. This would be used for someone who has contributed to an aggregate work, such
as anthology.
If the anthology consists of the works of a single person, family, or corporate body, that person would be the creator and the preferred title for the work would be either a conventional
collective title or an established title. The authorised access point for the work, would be contructed from the name of the creator followed by the preferred title for the work -. 6.2.2.10,/6.27.1.2
If the anthology includes works of more than one person, family, or corporate body. The "editor of the compilation" is recorded as a contributor (MARC 700)- the aggregate work is identifed
by its title (130 or 245). 6.27.1.4
The contents of the anthology are related works and can be fully analysed or recorded in MARC terms in contents note (505) or analytical authorised acccess point 700 _2))
A compiler is someone who creates a new work by putting together data or information tather than by aggregating existing works.
