On 22/04/2013 14:07, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
Those issues were exhaustively covered in the initial FRBR report. A major reason the term “edition” isn’t used in FRBR is because of the ambiguity surrounding its usage, as it can refer to either content or carrier. Of course different users will have different needs.
The other interesting requirement is always going to be is what are the data elements that are available that will serve all those users, and how do these elements logically accrue, and what functionality can be derived from they way they are organized and encoded. If more elements are needed then they can be added, and Bibframe appears to have an interesting tool to accomplish that in the form of Annotations.
I guess we’ll all find out. For printed materials, this may be correct but for digital, virtual materials, it is far more complex. Take a look at “Buying Book Chapters like Music Tracks, and What’s Wrong with Traditional Peer Review Anyway? A Conversation with Duke University Press, Part Two.” (Chronicle, April 17, 2013) http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/interview_dukeup_2/48527 (Part 1 is worthwhile, too). The editorial director of Duke U Press mentions some developments they foresee:
“KW: The right length for digital projects is malleable and at the same time as yet unknown. If you believe in media specificity — that a different kind of film works if you’re expecting people to watch in an iMAX theater versus if you’re expecting them to watch on a handheld — then even the same plot, the same effects and the same soundtrack would have to work differently.
If you apply this to a book project, we don’t actually know how a book is going to be read ten years from now. We don’t know the things we could currently imagine as the media specificity, whether that is the range of genres or the desired number of chapters. We don’t know whether most people will be starting at the beginning and reading through the text or coming by search to different parts — whether it’s a metadata guided read, or a narratively guided read. Even beyond these features we can recognize already, it’s easy to imagine there will be others. So right now we’re in a transitional place that’s really open and uncertain.”
Things are changing, and what people want is changing, too. Today, people still want printed books, but based on conversations I have had with younger people and watching them work with web resources filled with images, links, interactive sections, full-text searching, video, immediate access to online dictionaries to look up words and so on, I suspect that the printed book will–in their eyes, come to look more and more as something dead. No links? And just to look up a word you don’t know is a real pain using books.
Very often people do not want entire items, they want parts of items, so someone may need only a few paragraphs from a 300 page book but not the entire thing. But nobody had any choices before. This editor discusses the point later in the article and anyway, as he says, we don’t even know how a book is going to be read ten years from now. That is an amazing statement but I think it’s true!
FRBR may be an eternal description of what people want and need–or it may not. Too bad it’s never really been tested on the public. The original report came out in 1998 but it started sometime earlier. In Internet time where everything now happens at such breakneck speed, 1998 would probably be equivalent with the rise of the Ostrogoths.