I know you’re excited about superduping, and so am I, but hang in there. Today, I’m catching up on some recent mentions of FRBR on other blogs.
- John Fudrow’s Widgets, Widgets All Around, But Will They Click the Link? about LibraryThing for Libaries;
- Jenny Levine’s More on Comments in Hennepin’s Catalog shows an example of FRBR in action: comments on books are tied to the work, not the manifestation.
- John Fudrow’s Library Catalog 2.2: Tell Me What I Want, and I’ll Tell You What I Think follows up on Levine’s nicely: “I feel the most interesting aspect of this so far is the use of FRBR concepts to keep user thoughts centralized. If someone doesn’t realize the benefit of such a methodology, just envision how hard it is to talk intelligently about something if you aren’t even sure you are talking about the same thing.”
- Frédérick Giasson’s The Bibliographic Ontology explains a new project “to develop a new citation and bibliographic references ontology.” There’s a mailing list for it, and FRBR got mentioned early on: Bruce D’Arcus saying “I actually like FRBR, even if I don’t want to actually have to encode all the complicated relationships (it gets messy for a lot of citation stuff)!”
- Laura J. Smart, at Repositories for the Rest of Us, posted b.o.o.k. & RDA: “The point of the rant is my opinion that literate people will need to radically reconceptualize our collective notion of the book in order to make full use of books of the future. For librarians, this should go hand in hand with our use of FRBR and RDA.”
- An anonymous U of Alabama student posted Promissory Note: “But now it turns out all this beautiful syndetic and collocative structure buried in MARC records that FRBR is able to extract and express hierarchically can also be used to build inference structures.”