[MEI-L] FRBR in MEI

[Roland, Perry (pdr4h)]

Random comments on the discussion so far.  Sorry if this gets long.

When contemplating performances and recordings, it seems to me that people often have trouble reaching agreement on the term "sound recording".  Andrew's slides label the *expression* as "the sound recording", but others might label the *manifestation* as "the sound recording".  You might say the expression is the "act of making a recording" and the manifestation is the "recording that results".

To disentangle the different uses of the term "recording", it helps me to remember that an expression is not a physical entity, but a manifestation is.  Therefore, I prefer to think of the expression as "the performance" (the non-physical thing being recorded) and the manifestation as "the recording" (the physical thing).  This fits with the way libraries have traditionally cataloged recordings, i.e., CDs, LPs, cassettes, wax cylinders, ...

In any case, the FRBR document, which Axel cites, says a *performance is an expression* and a *recording is a manifestation*.

The usual "waterfall" kind of diagram is explained by saying the term "work" applies to conceptual content; "expression" applies to the languages/media/versions in which the work occurs; "manifestation" applies to the formats in which each expression is available; and "item" applies to individual copies of a single format.  (Here "media" means "medium of expression", say written language as opposed to film, and "format" means physical format, as in printed book as opposed to audio CD.)

Taking another tack, though, often it is easier for me to think of FRBR "from the bottom up", rather than start from the work and proceed "down" the waterfall diagram.  Using the recording example, the item is the exemplar I hold in my hand, the manifestation is all of the copies of that exemplar (or better yet, all the information shared by all those copies), the expression is the version of the work that is represented by the manifestation (e.g., Jo's nose flute + harpsichord version and the orchestral version are different expressions), and the work is an intellectual creation/idea (e.g., Bohl's op. 1, the one that goes da, da, da, daaaaaa, reeep! reeep! reeep!).

Using this "bottom up" thinking helps avoid mental contortions regarding what the work is -- the work is simply the thing at the end of this mental process.  From there on, there are work-to-work relationships, so we don't have to think about whether "Romeo and Juliet", "Westside Story", and every other story about star-crossed lovers are expressions of an ur-work with its own manifestations and so on, which lead us to a different "waterfall" conclusion each time we discover a new work or expression.

Instead of creating separate expression-level markup for each performance, Axel treats some expressions (performances) as events related to another expression of a work (the orchestral version vs. the nose flute version).  This is fine.  As Johannes already pointed out, separate <expression> elements for the performances can be generated from the <eventList> markup, if necessary.  Conversely, there's nothing wrong with creating separate <expression> elements for each performance and relating them to other appropriate expressions and/or relating them directly to the work.  If necessary, given accurate place and date information, the <eventList> kind of markup could be created from the separate <expression> elements.  So, six of one ...

Johannes said "If there is a manuscript of the nose flute version, the information about it would be spread between the manifestation (source) and the item."  Well, maybe.  But, I think in this case it would be fine to describe the manifestation and the item in a single place (within <source> in MEI) because there's only one manifestation and one (and only one) item associated with that manifestation.  This is the traditional way manuscripts have been described, pre-FRBR.  Practically speaking, the manifesation and the item are the same thing.  But, as soon as you want to say something special about a particular *part* (as in "chunk", not performer part) of the manifestation, you have to split these up again, for example, when one section of a manuscript is located in Prague and another is in Manitoba.

This is not the case with printed material where there is *always* more than one item created from a manifestation, but it is still traditional to describe the manifestation and item as though they are the same thing.  For example, it is common to follow the manifestation's author, title, place of publication, etc. with information about the location where one can obtain an examplar of the manifestation, say, UVa Library M 296.C57 1987. 

Johannes also said "So if you have two more measures in a source, this source establishes a new expression in FRBR."  Again, maybe.  The FRBR report (1997, amended and corrected through 2009) says 

"Variations within substantially the same expression (e.g., slight variations that can be noticed between two states of the same edition in the case of hand press production) would normally be ignored or, in specialized catalogues, be reflected as a note within the bibliographic record for the manifestation. However, for some applications of the model (e.g., early texts of rare manuscripts), each variation may be viewed as a different expression."

The issue is in the determination of whether 2 things are "substantially the same expression".  As with many things, this depends on the person making the determination, there is no single correct answer.  We intend that MEI will provide the tools for accurate description using either approach.

Just my 2 cents,

--
p.

__________________________
Perry Roland
Music Library
University of Virginia
P. O. Box 400175
Charlottesville, VA 22904
434-982-2702 (w)
pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu