<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Francis,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">I think it’s difficult to address this issue within the FRBR context,
because art and cultural objects don’t fit into the WEMI model. Most art and
cultural objects (excluding prints, photographs, objects cast from moulds, and other materials which can exist in multiples) are unique physical objects, so work, expression,
manifestation, and item are indissoluble; at every level, we are dealing with a
single, concrete thing. This is a very different situation from textual works;
a textual work is the same work, whether it is printed on paper, written on
vellum, or carved on birch bark, or recited on a sound recording. But for art
works, the content of the work is inseparable from the carrier, meaning that
every carrier (i.e. item) is a different work. A straight line by artist X is a
different work when executed in oil or in pencil or crayon. In fact you can go
further and say that every separate object is a different work, even if each
object is executed by the same artist who is trying to replicate exactly the
same brush strokes using exactly the type of medium and support.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">I would hope that at some point RDA would deal with this issue; otherwise
its utility will be limited to descriptions of bibliographic resources. More immediately and still within the context of bibliographic description, I wonder if revisers of RDA could tackle a long-standing problem for those who deal with art documentation or with illustrated books: the treatment of
reproductions of art works. Librarians
usually don’t deal with original art works, but they do deal with reproductions
of these works in published works. There isn’t a satisfactory model
for where they fit into bibliographic description. Cataloging codes used to include
special rules for dealing with them; now we force them into the bibliographic
mold, treating a visual reproduction of an art work as analogous to either a
reproduction of a printed text (in which case it is a manifestation), or to a
translation of a textual work (in which case it is a different expression). Neither
analogy is particularly valid or useful. There is some sentiment within the
field for treating the relationship as a subject relationship, and yet that
also seems to me like a stretch.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Although the WEMI model doesn’t work for the relationship between
art work and reproduction, it does seem applicable to categorizing the relationships
between different forms of the reproduction: e.g. the negative of the image is
one manifestation of a particular reproduction, the photographic print is
another manifestation, the digital image is a third; and the reproduction within a publication might be a fourth (or maybe not, maybe that is something else entirely--a constituent work). Anyway, there is a matter for (yet another) task force!<br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><br><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Liz O'Keefe<br></span></p>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Lapka, Francis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu" target="_blank">francis.lapka@yale.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d">I agree with John, I think.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d">I’d really like to hear from those of you who specialize in graphic and cartographic resources. This very topic will be treated in a RDA revision proposal later this year, and your
input may well influence the recommendations we make in that proposal.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d">Francis<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>JOHN C ATTIG<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 21, 2014 1:31 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> DCRM Users' Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [DCRM-L] Dimensions of content?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">I would assume that for analog visual resources (digital technology changes all of this), the dimensions of the image are related to the dimensions of the plate (or whatever)
that creates the image on the paper (or other carrier). Therefore a plate of a different size is at least a new expression, if not a new work.</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">It is interesting that in the case of analog visual resources, the expression is actually a concrete thing, (some of) whose attributes can be described based on the characteristics
of the manifestation. (Of course, one could also describe the actual plate as a unique item, but that is something different.)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"> John<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #1010ff 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black">"Francis Lapka" <<a href="mailto:francis.lapka@yale.edu" target="_blank">francis.lapka@yale.edu</a>><br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu" target="_blank">dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Friday, November 21, 2014 12:52:54 PM<br>
<b>Subject: </b>[DCRM-L] Dimensions of content?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d">A theoretical question for a Friday afternoon: Can dimensions be an attribute of content (i.e. Expression)? For most stuff, surely not. But what about for *<b>visual</b>* resources
(and by extension, *<b>cartographic</b>* resources). For the latter, bear in mind that scale is an attribute of Expression.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d">When we record a dimensions statement like “image 13 x 14 cm, on sheet 33 x 42 cm” (to grab an example from DCRMG) – are the image dimensions still an attribute of the carrier?</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d">Put another way: Does a significant change in size of a visual resource create a new Expression?
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d">Francis</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:#1f497d"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> Lapka, Francis
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 21, 2014 12:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> '<a href="mailto:gordon@gordondunsire.com" target="_blank">gordon@gordondunsire.com</a>'; JOHN C ATTIG<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:sprochia@health.missouri.edu" target="_blank">sprochia@health.missouri.edu</a>;
<a href="mailto:EOKEEFE@themorgan.org" target="_blank">EOKEEFE@themorgan.org</a>; <a href="mailto:kcoylenet@gmail.com" target="_blank">
kcoylenet@gmail.com</a>; metadata maven; <a href="mailto:mscharff@wustl.edu" target="_blank">mscharff@wustl.edu</a>; Bourassa, Dominique<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Measurements (high-level AUQ) + Extent of the Carrier<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black">I argue that one *<b>could</b>* make a case for dimensions of content – for select varieties of resources; I’m not necessarily suggesting that we *<b>should</b>*.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black">I think with Duration, FRBR/RDA has already set a precedent that a concrete (precise) measurement can be recorded for a *<b>dimension</b>* of content. The duration of an Expression
will vary from Manifestation to Manifestation, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a rough duration that all of these Manifestations should have in common. If a performer decides to run through a piece at 4x the intended tempo, arguably this fundamentally
changes the character of the piece into something like a new Expression. This same principle is transferable to many varieties of visual resources (and cartographic resources, as a subset of visual resources), where the dimension is length instead of duration.
There are some visual resources for which a change in size may be the most evident attribute to make a distinction between two Expressions of the same Work. Yes, that change size in size will also probably be reflected in a change in size of the carrier or
the applied material, but those are derivative changes.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black">Again, I think we probably *<b>shouldn’t</b>* pursue the idea of dimensions for Expression. But I think the same arguments made against the idea could be made against the idea of
Duration as an attribute of content.</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black">Francis</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:gordon@gordondunsire.com" target="_blank">gordon@gordondunsire.com</a> [<a href="mailto:gordon@gordondunsire.com" target="_blank">mailto:gordon@gordondunsire.com</a>]
<br>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 11:50 AM<br>
To: JOHN C ATTIG<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:sprochia@health.missouri.edu" target="_blank">sprochia@health.missouri.edu</a>;
<a href="mailto:EOKEEFE@themorgan.org" target="_blank">EOKEEFE@themorgan.org</a>; Lapka, Francis;
<a href="mailto:kcoylenet@gmail.com" target="_blank">kcoylenet@gmail.com</a>; metadata maven;
<a href="mailto:mscharff@wustl.edu" target="_blank">mscharff@wustl.edu</a>; Bourassa, Dominique<br>
Subject: Re: Measurements (high-level AUQ) + Extent of the Carrier<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">John and others<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">[In Friday mode/mood :-)]<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">What does it mean to record the dimensions (height, width) of an image as content? It seems obvious with unmediated carriers - but what about computer carriers? Especially if a printed image is digitized ...
If I record the dimensions of an image in expression data as "23 cm x 15 cm" and then photo-reduce it on the unmediated carrier to fit on a smaller sheet, I end up with "1 image (23 cm x 15 cm) [carried] on 1 sheet (12 cm x 9 cm)" What does that mean? In fact,
the image size on the sheet could well be smaller (with blank borders). If I take the same expression and embody it on a computer disk, then if it is digitized to a high density TIFF file, I can view it on the computer as if it were very much larger than the
dimensions recorded in the expression data. So what are the actual dimensions of the image as content?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Isn't what carries the image on an unmediated sheet the applied material (ink, paint, etc.) on the sheet? If so, it would make more sense to record the area covered by the applied material, and that is surely
manifestation data :-)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Isn't it sufficient to say "1 image on 4 sheets (10 cm x 10 cm)"?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">We often talk about maps in this context. Following on from the argument above, what is important about cartographic content is the scale and bounding coordinates, not the dimensions of the map. The scale and
coordinates are what determine the "natural" size of a cartographic image - but it can still be "bigger" or "smaller" depending on how the image is carried.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">And what about 3-d cartographic objects? What is the Dimensions of expression of a globe? It can't be height or width - maybe it is diameter ;-) What about a 3-d relief? Height may be the height of the carrier
(cast metal, carved wood,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">whatever) or the height minus the thickness of the base.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">If it is deemed insufficient for a particular resource to record "5 maps [carried] on 3 sheets (12 cm x 15 cm)" because 1 of the maps is printed on 2 sheets, and the other 4 are all on 1 sheet, then, as you
hint, it is better to treat each map as a work in its own right.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">As I said in Washington, Dimensions of expression makes me uneasy - and the feeling is getting stronger (maybe because it's Friday :-)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Cheers<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black">Gordon<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Georgia","serif";color:black">[earlier portions of the thread omitted – FL]</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Elizabeth O'Keefe<br>Director of Collection Information Systems<br>The Morgan Library & Museum<br>225 Madison Avenue<br>New York, NY 10016-3405<br> <br>TEL: 212 590-0380<br>FAX: 2127685680<br>NET: <a href="mailto:eokeefe@themorgan.org" target="_blank">eokeefe@themorgan.org</a><br><br>Visit CORSAIR, the Library's comprehensive collections catalog:<br><a href="http://corsair.themorgan.org" target="_blank">http://corsair.themorgan.org</a><br></div></div>
</div>