[DCRM-L] Dimensions of content?

Sat Nov 22 12:07:15 MST 2014

Francis,

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.

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.

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!

Liz O'Keefe

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Lapka, Francis <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
wrote:

>  I agree with John, I think.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *JOHN C ATTIG
> *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 1:31 PM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Dimensions of content?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.)
>
>
>
>         John
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Francis Lapka" <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
> *To: *dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Sent: *Friday, November 21, 2014 12:52:54 PM
> *Subject: *[DCRM-L] Dimensions of content?
>
>
>
> 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 **visual** resources (and by extension, **cartographic**
> resources). For the latter, bear in mind that scale is an attribute of
> Expression.
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> Put another way: Does a significant change in size of a visual resource
> create a new Expression?
>
>
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lapka, Francis
> *Sent:* Friday, November 21, 2014 12:30 PM
> *To:* 'gordon at gordondunsire.com'; JOHN C ATTIG
> *Cc:* sprochia at health.missouri.edu; EOKEEFE at themorgan.org;
> kcoylenet at gmail.com; metadata maven; mscharff at wustl.edu; Bourassa,
> Dominique
> *Subject:* RE: Measurements (high-level AUQ) + Extent of the Carrier
>
>
>
> I argue that one **could** make a case for dimensions of content – for
> select varieties of resources; I’m not necessarily suggesting that we *
> *should**.
>
>
>
> I think with Duration, FRBR/RDA has already set a precedent that a
> concrete (precise) measurement can be recorded for a **dimension** 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.
>
>
>
> Again, I think we probably **shouldn’t** 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.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gordon at gordondunsire.com [mailto:gordon at gordondunsire.com
> <gordon at gordondunsire.com>]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 11:50 AM
> To: JOHN C ATTIG
> Cc: sprochia at health.missouri.edu; EOKEEFE at themorgan.org; Lapka, Francis;
> kcoylenet at gmail.com; metadata maven; mscharff at wustl.edu; Bourassa,
> Dominique
> Subject: Re: Measurements (high-level AUQ) + Extent of the Carrier
>
>
>
> John and others
>
>
>
> [In Friday mode/mood :-)]
>
>
>
> 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?
>
> 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 :-)
>
>
>
> Isn't it sufficient to say "1 image on 4 sheets (10 cm x 10 cm)"?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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,
>
> whatever) or the height minus the thickness of the base.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> As I said in Washington, Dimensions of expression makes me uneasy - and
> the feeling is getting stronger (maybe because it's Friday :-)
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Gordon
>
>
>
>
>
> [earlier portions of the thread omitted – FL]
>
>
>

-- 
Elizabeth O'Keefe
Director of Collection Information Systems
The Morgan Library & Museum
225 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016-3405

TEL: 212 590-0380
FAX: 2127685680
NET: eokeefe at themorgan.org

Visit CORSAIR, the Library's comprehensive collections catalog:
http://corsair.themorgan.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20141122/b4513971/attachment-0001.html>