[libdb-develop] Re: W "Forms" and the use of matching "Roles"

[Richard A. <lil...@ya...>]

I believe that the "Super-type" would be the best
option to enforce. As far as "defining" "Super-types"
look no further than the <a
href="http://www.copyright.gov/">Copyright Office's
website.</a href>

"Insanity!", you say? Wait, hear me out. The Copyright
office's registration forms have their own
"super-types":

<a
href="http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html">Literary
works.</a href>
<a
href="http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html">Visual
arts.</a href>
<a
href="http://www.copyright.gov/register/performing.html">Performing
arts.</a href>
<a
href="http://www.copyright.gov/register/sound.html">Sound
recordings.</a href>
<a
href="http://www.copyright.gov/register/serial.html">Serials/Periodicals.</a
href>

Each of these "super-types" have their own criteria
for whether or not a given work constitutes inclusion
within a particular "super-type".

For example:
From the Copyright Office's site:
<b>Examples of literary works:</b>

<i>fiction, nonfiction, manuscripts, poetry,
contributions to collective works, compilations of
data or other literary subject matter, dissertations,
theses, reports, speeches, bound or looseleaf volumes,
secure tests, pamphlets, brochures, textbooks, online
works, reference works, directories, catalogs,
advertising copy, single pages of text, tracts, games,
automated databases, computer programs</i>

You will notice plays, scripts, screenplays, and
dramas all missing from the Literary Work
"super-type". That is because they are classified
under Performing Arts.

Soooooooo...
Playwrights, and Screenwriters "roles" would be
restricted to "works" that fell under the Performing
Arts "super-type". I think this alternative could
provide the clarification of roles within works that
you were seeking.

As for this:

>Among all the possible
  >expressions for a given work, you have to choose
one as being best
  >"representative" for the work, and the "form" of
that "representative
  >expression" is then supposed to be the
"constraining super-type of the
  >work", that is: "if an expression does not fit in
this category, then it is
  >an expression of another work". For instance: in
the FRBR conventions, an
  >adaptation of a novel into a children"s book is
supposed to another work
  >(p. 17; I"ve always found that questionable, but
that"s another issue).
  >This means that the novel has a "representative
expression" which has as
  >constraining super-type: "text - novel"; then you
compare the expression
  >embodied in the children"s book (which has as form:
"text - novel for
  >children") to that representative expression and
you find out that they are
  >different. Of course, an authoritative list for
"constraining super-types"
  >of works is dramatically important in that process,
because this is what
  >will determine your cataloging conventions and
demarcating lines between
  >works. If I do not declare "text - novel for
children" as a distinct
  >"constraining super-type", but only "text - novel",
then a novel adapted
  >for children will remain just an expression of the
novel as a work, not a
  >new work. This flexibility was intended in the FRBR
model, as no one in the
  >world can positively say "This is not the same
work" (it"s basically just a
  >matter of taste...).

I agree with the notion that adaptations (or as the
Copyright Office calls them "Derivative Works")
<b>should not</b> constitute a new "Work", but act as
an expression. It just sounds like common sense. Using
"text - novel for children" instead of "text - novel"
(or Literary Work) is fine if you really want to have
adaptations/derivatives defined as their own work, but
it sounds redundant when you have already defined
Audience as an attribute of an Expression. Besides if
the work is an adaptation/derivative of another work,
would it be easier to map the relationship from work
to work, or expression to work.

But as for AustLit's "WorkTypeTerms", or MARC's "Genre
List", there seems to be too much overlap; especially
when you begin assigning roles to the respective
genres or worktypes. The point of this exercise was to
eliminate as many orverlapping roles as possible
right? Or am I completely misreading this?


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/