On Jan 15, 2004, at 3:09 PM, Morbus Iff wrote:
> The main problem that I see it, though, is that an article in a serial
> CAN be considered a work all by itself - it doesn't take a huge leap
> of faith to make that association. But, I rarely find myself think of
> scenes in a movie as individual, stand-alone entities: it's difficult
> to just pick 35 seconds of a movie and say "this stands alone".
>
> "this stands alone" seems to be a required assumption of FRBR, though
> they do mention "aggregate works", and that may be key to what we're
> trying to solve. If a movie is considered an aggregate work of images
> (it is, technically, frame by frame), then we've suddenly got logic on
> our side to take a 35 second piece of scenery and call it a work (or a
> "part").
I'm too tired and busy to think hard about the details of your example
just now (I didn't think a book or journal could be an expression,
though am not sure), but in general:
Yes, librarians aren't used to thinking much about parts. MODS didn't
have that structure until I pointed out the problem and managed to
convince a few people why they should care. For my needs they're
essential: chapters, articles, and legal cases are all parts.
But with respect to movies, obviously there could be some key scenes
that might be catalogued as a part. That'd be rare I imagine. More
common might be where there are clearly defined parts. For example,
DVDs have titled and numbered scenes. Or say you have a compilation of
television episodes on a single tape or DVD. In my example, I was
imagining a video that had collected speeches.
Bruce
|
