Jenn Riley gave a presentation on FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) at the 2006 Indiana Library Federation Annual Conference. She introduced the core concepts of FRBR, including entities, attributes, relationships, and user tasks. She discussed the FRBR group 1, 2, and 3 entities and how they are related. Riley also covered the Library of Congress' proposals to fit FRBR into existing MARC record structures and why libraries should care about FRBR, such as to improve user search and discovery experiences. She concluded by mentioning some existing FRBR implementations and encouraging attendees to learn more about FRBR.
Incoming and Outgoing Shipments in 3 STEPS Using Odoo 17
De-Mystifying FRBR: A Whirlwind Introduction
1. De-Mystifying FRBR: A
Whirlwind Introduction
Jenn Riley
Metadata Librarian
IU Digital Library Program
jenlrile@indiana.edu
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual Conference
1
2. Agenda
Introduction to FRBR
LC proposals for fitting FRBR into existing
record structures
Why you should care
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual2
Conference
3. Agenda
Introduction to FRBR
LC proposals for fitting FRBR into existing
record structures
Why you should care
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual3
Conference
4. What is FRBR?
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records
Either F-R-B-R or “Ferber”
Outlined in a 1997/1998 report from IFLA
A “conceptual model”
entities
attributes
relationships
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual4
Conference
5. Contents of FRBR Report
Introduction
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Entities
Attributes
Relationships
User Tasks
Basic Requirements for National
Bibliographic Records
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual5
Conference
6. User Tasks
FRBR
Find
Identify
Select
Obtain
Cutter
To enable a person to find a book of
which either
...is known
To show what the library has
by a given author
on a given subject
in a given kind of literature
To assist in the choice of a book
4/13/2006
the author
the title
the subject
as to its edition (bibliographically)
as to its character (literary or topical)
Indiana Library Federation Annual6
Conference
7. Group 1 Entities
WORK
“a distinct intellectual an expression of a work”
“the physical embodiment of or artistic creation”
“a single exemplar of a manifestation”
“the intellectual or artistic realization of a work”
is realized through
EXPRESSION
is embodied in
w1 Franz Schubert's Trout quintet
w1 Harry Lindgren's Geometric dissections
w1 Ronald Hayman's Playback
-e1 the composer's score
-e1 the author's text Geometric
-e1 original text entitlededited for
-e2 a performance by the Amadeus
dissections
publication Hephzibah Menuhin on
Quartet and
-m1 the book published in 1973 by
piano -m1 the book published in 1964by Van
Davis-Poynter
-e3 Nostrand
a performance by the Cleveland
-e2 revised Yo-Yo Ma onRecreational
Quartet and copy autographed by the
-i1 text entitled the cello
problems in geometric dissections ....
-. . .author
.
-m1 the book published in 1972 by
Dover
4/13/2006
MANIFESTATION
is exemplified by
ITEM
Indiana Library Federation Annual7
Conference
8. Not always clear where a real-world
situation falls
New preface
New illustrations
Braille
Screenplay
Serials
Aggregations
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual8
Conference
9. Expression entity uncertainty
FRBR report, p. 19:
“Strictly speaking, any change in intellectual or artistic
content constitutes a change in expression. Thus, if a text
is revised or modified, the resulting expression is
considered to be a new expression, no matter how minor
the modification may be.”
“On a practical level, the degree to which bibliographic
distinctions are made between variant expressions of a
work will depend to some extent on the nature of the work
itself, and on the anticipated needs of users.”
Expression entity working group now formed
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual9
Conference
10. Group 2 Entities
“…responsible for the intellectual or artistic
content, the physical production and
dissemination, or the custodianship of the
entities…” in Group 1
Person
Corporate body
[Family]
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual10
Conference
11. Group 3 Entities
Subjects of Works
Groups 1 & 2 entities
Concept
Object
Event
Place
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual11
Conference
12. FRANAR
Functional Requirements and Numbering of
Authority Records IFLA Working Group
Released FRAR report in 2005
Companion document to FRBR
Discusses cataloging process more than
entity-relationship analysis
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual12
Conference
13. Agenda
Introduction to FRBR
LC proposals for fitting FRBR into existing
record structures
Why you should care
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual13
Conference
14. Possible FRBR applications
Scenario A - Now
Authority
Work/
Expression
Uniform
Title
Bibliographic
Holding
Person
Series
(work/expression)
Uniform
Title
Concept
Manifestation
Item
19. New record structures
No decisions made yet about the best way to
proceed within MARC
Any changes will be phased in over time
Any changes will represent steep challenges
both to ILS vendors and to implementing
libraries
Any changes will be made with user
functionality as a prime consideration
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual19
Conference
20. Agenda
Introduction to FRBR
LC proposals for fitting FRBR into existing
record structures
Why you should care
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual20
Conference
21. How many records are affected?
Average work has 1.5 manifestations
78% of works have a single manifestation
~99% of all works in WorldCat have seven
manifestations or less
~30,000, or ~1% have more than 20 manifestations
R. Bennett et. al. (2003) "The concept of a work in WorldCat: an application of FRBR" Library
Collections Acquisitions & Technical Services 27, 45-59.
So why do we need FRBR?
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual21
Conference
23. End-users
Grouping and disambiguation of search
results [example]
Better distinction between versions
Better support for browsing, discovery of
previously unknown items
ILL
Holds
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual23
Conference
24. RDA & FRBR
“The FRBR and FRAR models provide RDA
with an underlying framework that has the
scope needed to support comprehensive
coverage of all types of content and media,
the flexibility and extensibility needed to
accommodate newly emerging resource
characteristics, and the adaptability needed
for the data produced to function within a
wide range of technological environments.”
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual24
Conference
25. Other cataloging changes
Non-MARC environments
Many already doing FRBR-like things
Tend to have lots of programming support
MARC environments
Need more innovation from ILS vendors
Catalogers used to looking at 1 record (well, 2
records) showing everything
Need to provide complex relationships when
necessary, hide when not
Supporting legacy records will be complicated
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual25
Conference
26. Perspectives from the 2005 ALCTS
FRBR ALA Preconference
Glenn Patton (OCLC)
Clearer understanding of why we do what we do
Better collocation and navigation
Clearer, more useful relationships
More controlled, authoritative information for
productivity
Jennifer Bowen (Rochester): “Is FRBR really
coming? It’s already here!”
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual26
Conference
27. Some implementations & related
projects
OCLC FictionFinder and Curioser
RLG RedLightGreen
AustLit Gateway
VTLS Virtua ILS system
III Millennium 2005 ILS system
IU Variations2
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual27
Conference
28. So what do I do now?
Learn more!
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual28
Conference
29. For further information
FRBR report
Readings on handout
FRBR listserv
FRBR blog
jenlrile@indiana.edu
These presentation materials:
<http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~jenlrile/presentations/ilf2006/>
4/13/2006
Indiana Library Federation Annual29
Conference
Notas do Editor
<number>
When we catalog, we start with an item we have at hand. From it we construct a bibliographic record that is intended to describe the manifestation, that is any copy held anywhere, so the record can be re-used by others in a shared cataloging environment.
We also make authority records to control the way we identify works and expressions that are embodied in the manifestation we are describing, and that in turn may be linked to a name authority record for the person or corporate body that is responsible for creating the work or expression. In some integrated library systems this link between the bib and authority records is real, which also makes database maintenance and global update changes easier than when these links are not present.
<number>
Here’s a scenario for the future, where we would make use of authority records for works and expressions and do more linking directly at the authority record level for the classification and subject headings that are appropriate to the work. Those authority records would also be available to display for each linked bib record, and we could save cataloger’s time by not needing to classify and provide subject headings for all the manifestations of that same work/expression combination.
For the location, call number for the items, We’d still need to cutter for the individual item or copy we were adding, but that would be a lot simpler than all the other subject cataloging work that is now done. The item information for inventory control, circulation, interlibrary loan, etc. would be entered as part of the holdings record and would reflect the call number for the copy held locally.
I really like this model, but we need to experiment to see if this is best or perhaps there is a better implementation model for FRBR. This model will require some changes to the authority record – to include 65X’s for the subject headings – we already have a field for classification.
<number>
Here’s another scenario, where we could use the bib records for works and expressions, link the subjects or even use the 650’s in bib records as we can now, but somehow get our local systems to use the linked work/expression records as part of the displays when we view the manifestation records… This model, in my view is not really ideal… It would take a lot of work on the part of vendors to know how to display the linked work/expression records with the related bib records.
<number>
Here’s yet another scenario for the future, where we would use the MARC holdings record to capture all of the data elements (attributes) of the manifestation and items – that is, the physical characteristics – the physical media, publisher, distributor, manufacturer information relevant to the recording of the content.
Attaching holdings records to authority records should not be a giant programming job, but many current integrated library systems avoid authority records altogether, which is a pity. The potential in the future for using the authority record and its ability to cluster the variant names given to things and to link to specific resources, opens up tremendous flexibility to meet future user demands. This might be particularly interesting for serials. The title of a serial is a controlled access point. Logically that would be in an authority record.
But there is also the manifestation aspect of the physical format of any given serial and various attributes associated with the manifestation – its publisher, its numbering and dates, its physical medium (microform, digital online or a tangible digital object like a CD-ROM) and mode of issuance (e.g., successively issued or integrating resource) – we now put the manifestation information in bibliographic records
And the item information may be in both bibliographic records or holdings in the MARC format and item records in local systems.
If we had a clear way of identifying the attributes for a particular work/expression/ manifestation/item combination, we could theoretically combine all such combinations for the same work in a single record, and just display the needed elements as the application or user specified. There are many ways this could work.
<number>
Here’s yet another scenario – a variation from the last where we’d use the bib record again for the work/expression record…and the holdings record for manifestations and items…but this has the same drawbacks as Scenario C..
A lot of this depends on vendors to come up with system designs and for cataloging rules to be clear about needed entities and attributes and relationships – which brings us back to FRBR and cataloging rules.