[MEI-L] FRBR in MEI

Tue Nov 20 12:33:41 CET 2012

Hi Benni

Perhaps we should remember that FRBR is intended for _bibliographic records_, not for descriptions of a work's reception history. Thus, the premise for using FRBR is that in the end we want to describe bibliographic items. Since a performance itself isn't a bibliographic item, perhaps it does not have to fit in? Only if it results in such an item (via manifestation), i.e. a recording, it becomes truly relevant to use FRBR. The performance in that case is not the primary thing we want to describe, it is just the context that resulted in the recording manifestation.

Just another 2 cents,
Axel

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] På vegne af Benjamin Wolff Bohl
Sendt: 20. november 2012 11:57
Til: Music Encoding Initiative
Emne: Re: [MEI-L] FRBR in MEI

Hi Perry,
thanks for some clarifying approaches
further statements inline

Am 16.11.2012 22:25, schrieb 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, ...
I completely agree on that, being the reason why I used both the terms recording and record with record being on the manifestation/item-level and recording being rather on the expression-manifestation-level. Why so? Recording has to be subordinate to work after all and a recording is not just a simple physical manifestation but a multistep process involving conceptual and creative work done by producers and engineers. 
So talking about a recording as only being a manifestation becomes problematic as it is a intellectual process resulting in a physical manifestation. That's the way I was looking on it (owed to my audio engineering past) and of course it can be seen differently.
> In any case, the FRBR document, which Axel cites, says a *performance is an expression* and a *recording is a manifestation*.
This is perfectly plausible when disregarding the intellectual endeavour entangled with the "act of making a recording", as mentioned before.
> 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.
The idea of approaching the FRBR model "from the bottom" is great. And to be honest was something I did when drawing my model, especially concerning the record and recording portion of it. I started out from work on the top right and from the individual record bottom right and tried to fill in as many steps as possible, always wondering whether it be physical or conceptual. Actually I had the recording in between expression and manifestation in the first place, as I had the audio tape or digital audio in between manifestation and item.
The parallel processes from a wok to an item (regardless of whichever form this may have) are owed to perspective and goal. When talking about graphical sources I completely agree with the idea of a certain instrumentation version or the like being an expression, a print run being a manifestation an individual copy of which would be an item.
> 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 ...
I can agree here, too. I only wondered if the sound wave resulting from the performance was the physical item (specific performers on a specific date), then consequently a series of performances by conductor and orchestra would make up for the manifestation, the expression then would be the concept that the conductor developed studying his "source material" and making up the way he wanted the composition to be realized ergo his "personal version" of the piece, somewhat of a personal edition.
The performance material of course being an item of a certain print run
(manifestation) of a certain edition (expression), having strong relationships to all of the above.
> 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 was the idea behind me marking/stretching the autograph from expression to item.

/benjamin
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l

_______________________________________________
mei-l mailing list
mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l