Re: Getting CreativeWork Relationships done

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> wrote:

> How do you relate these together?  How do you say they're all expressions
> of the same work?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_of_Huckleberry_Finn
> http://lccn.loc.gov/35020965
>
> https://openlibrary.org/books/OL19412083M/Die_Abenteuer_des_Huckleberry_Finn
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19640/19640-index.html
>

Wikipedia articles are almost always principally about the work.  Of
course, in the Wikipedia tradition, they never feel constrained to cover
just one things, so mix in a smattering of discussion about editions,
adaptations, etc.

The other three records refer to editions.  The fact that we don't know
which edition served as the basis for the translation or which edition was
performed for the audiobook (perhaps not a published one) doesn't make them
any less editions of the work.


> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>wrote:
>>
>>> You're referring to a very different (and much more complicated and
>>> human intensive) component of FRBR: adaptations, translations, supplements,
>>> etc.  commonEndeavour is intended to smooth over different versions of the
>>> _same_ work (that is, the various printed forms of 'Adventures of
>>> Huckleberry Finn', but it wouldn't generally be used to link to a stage or
>>> screen adaptation, for example) as opposed to related works.  We have a lot
>>> of data that we know is referring to the same general intellectual output,
>>> but we do not necessarily know the direct relationship between the
>>> individual representations of it, nor do most people care (they just care
>>> about the work, in general).
>>>
>>
>> Can you provide a link to a web page (Wikipedia article, book review,
>> etc) which expresses a relationship like this in English?  I don't think
>> I've ever run across it and I'm having a hard time envisioning when it
>> would occur.
>>
>
Now, will you consider answering my question?

Tom