Re: [libdb-develop] parts example

[Bruce D'A. <bd...@fa...>]

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