Issue 401: Parent of F4 Manifestation Singleton
Posted by Thanasis Velios on 10/9/2018
I looked through the mailing list archive but could not find an answer for:
Why is F4 Manifestation Singleton a child of E24 and not a child of E22?
Its scope note starts with: "This class comprises physical objects..." and we are always talking about a carrier. Are there any examples of features-carriers that I can't think of? If, when scratching a poem on a
rocky mountain, the mountain is considered a carrier, then I think we should update the scope note to reflect that.
Posted by George on 16/9/2018
Yes I would take it that that was the intention of the authors. Scribbling your master piece in water on the back of a torn napkin or so. So I would agree that the language should probably change to reflect that.
Posted by Martin on 17/9/2018
On 9/16/2018 3:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
> Hi Thanasis,
> Yes I would take it that that was the intention of the authors. Scribbling your master piece in water on the back of a torn napkin or so. So I would agree that the language should probably change to reflect that.
Indeed, there are lots of inscriptions, texts written in notebooks etc. Need not be so exotic. Probably many manuscripts are not exclusive to one carrier.
But we have to check if in LRMoo it is already obsolete.
Posted by George on 17/9/2018
I had this reference in mind, which I’ve been looking for for a long time:
Posted by Thanasis on 18/9/2018
LRM-E4 Manifestation is talking about sets of "carriers" which I think is fine. LRM-E5 Item is defined as:
"An object or objects carrying signs intended to convey intellectual or artistic content."
which may be problematic, especially when the scope note refers to a "portion of the disk" for digital items. Maybe change "object" to "physical thing" or "physical entity" or simply "objects or parts of
Scope note of F4 Manifestation Singleton to change
"This class comprises physical objects that each carry an..."
"This class comprises instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing that each
Posted by Martin on 18/9/2018
I believe the concept of "Expression" as something permanent, i.e., the FRBR concept of it, actually confuses the problem. "Expression" is to my understanding a process, an activity, and only in a second meaning the product. I do not see any difference to lots of best singers of the world performing in their bath rooms.
What is the point in knowing the absolutely greatest work of art? A Zen master was asked what the most valuable thing in the world is. He answered: the head of a dead cat. Why? because nobody would give a price for it...
We have discussed the "Expression Creation", the actually genuine Expression, as a process of externalization, and attempt to communicate something. I'd say things become culturally relevant by their social impact, and that is what we document.
If we would generalize over that, the result of an "Expression Creation" would be anything left on another carrier, be it in the heart of an audience, or on paper, or any other form. If the identity condition of such an Expression Creation is in the intention, carriers lost in the process as in your example would qualify. On the other side, if someone is eavesdropping on the bathroom song, we may even then talk of an Expression, or? Then, the "creation" part is more specific, and may be incidental or accidentally flawed.
Anyway, I think this view would greatly simplify things.
Posted by Oyvind on 18/9/2018
Well, performances are usually not part of library or museum collections. The theatre museums I have worked with collect artefacts, texts, stage models etc. etc. but not performances. They do collect traces of performances though: reviews, programmes, posters, stage drawings, costumes, video recordings etc.
But once an information system is created the performances find their natural place there. As they do in CRM and FRBR.
Another thing is the performative aspects of art forms traditionally not seen as performative, such as literature. As far as I know this is still a disputed area.
Posted by Martin on 18/9/2018
Well, I expressed just a more theoretical thought. There is a question of identity conditions: Is the product providing the identity to the activity, or the activity to the product? If the products are more loosely coupled such as multiple recordings, reviews etc., obviously the common identity they refer to is the activity experienced. If under my hands happens to be the keyboard of my laptop, and I package the product adequately, we tend to identify my writing by the produced text. Currently, neither CRM nor FRBR gives a good answer to a common view explaining the stages in between.
I consider here a more general concept of Expression than performance. I am not concerned if painting is performing, but that painting is an externalization of mental things as is theatre, singing and writing. I argue that causal to any art form and literature is first the brain-to-action process. This may or may not have a "self-contained form" and may or may not end up in persistent "self-contained" forms. Depending on the latter, I would like to be able to specialize down from the same overarching concept, let's call it "externalization", better than "expression" or "performance", which ultimately must comprise all signals externalized that may ever appear or are reflected in the products or by products or observations. I do not think that could be disputed.
When someone is writing ever on an unfinished work, such as Saint-Exupery's Citadelle, we may question if the unity and identity of action is better than the unity of the text...
I am just thinking if we may need at some time such a general concept, a nd what its limitations would be.
In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig decided to close this issue since the discussion on assigning F4 Manifestation Singleton the right superclass has become moot in view of the decision to deprecate F4 in the first place.
The issue has been closed.
Paris, June 2019