The FRBR Blog

The CONSER Operations Meeting is on at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., and on the agenda is Adolfo Tarango (of U California at San Diego) presenting a paper: FRBR for Serials: Rounding the Square to Fit the Peg (228 KB PDF). (CONSER is a cooperative online serials cataloguing program, among other things. Cataloguing serials (journals, magazines, newspapers, blogs) is non-trivial.)

Various presentations given and papers published over the past few years have addressed the issue of applying FRBR to serials. Each has started with the premise that FRBRizing serials cataloging is a good idea, but for the most part, all attempts have ended with the conclusion that serials don’t quite fit into the FRBR model. Creating separate usable work, expression, and manifestation level records is not possible. This proposal turns the cart around. Instead of attempting to make serials fit the FRBR model we make FRBR fit the serials publishing reality. As such, this proposal begins with a redefinition of the FRBR concept of work, and for purposes of cataloging, introduces the idea of a “work segment” record. The FRBR definitions of expression, manifestation, and item do not change. The end result is two practical applications: a potential serial authority structure and a possible serial bibliographic cataloging framework. Application of each resolves a variety of existing and emerging bibliographic control problems. These include creating a more holistic presentation of the historical run of a serial through its various title incarnations, limiting the proliferation of and need for uniform titles as distinguishing elements, reducing cataloging workloads, and improving bibliographic displays and navigation. The information that follows is in three parts. The first part gives the new definition of the serial work; the second presents the proposed serial authority structure, and the third covers the proposed serials cataloging concept of the work segment record.

… Taking inspiration from Martha Yee’s recent ALA midwinter presentation and a recently published paper by Everett Allgood, this proposed serials cataloging framework doesn’t attempt to create either an expression or manifestation level record, but rather blends both into a “work segment” record. A significant reason for doing so is a resulting labor savings, but also, it pushes the questions “Given the data recorded and user needs, do we need separate expression and manifestation level records, is having expression and manifestation level data in a single record such a bad thing, especially if there are labor savings and user service advantages to be gained by combining them in one record?”

Thanks to Tim Knight and The Serials Cataloger (who deems it “essential reading”) for the link.

(Updated 29 April so that the quote reads, “The FRBR definitions of expression, manifestation, and item do not change.”)

David Bigwood noticed that the report of the 21 August 2007 meeting of the Working Group on Aggregates (23 KB PDF) had been posted.

Members and observers discussed the draft of a paper by Ed O’Neill and Maja Žumer. The draft, sent to committee members several weeks prior to IFLA, summarizes the difficulties and inconsistencies in applying the FRBR model to aggregates, and applies three different, previously identified, modeling approaches to two different works: The Deptford trilogy; and The Expedition of Humphry Clinker. This draft document represents a response to the previous year’s meeting in Seoul, South Korea, where committee members and observers felt the need to have a document describing different models for aggregates, and also describing the ambiguity of the FRBR model in terms of the treatment of aggregates.

The group briefly deliberated the often-discussed “Universality Principle”, which states that if an entity is a work in any of its manifestations, it is a work in all of its manifestations.

… A WG member and an observer noted that we need to define these models in a timely manner, or we could be forced to inherit models that have been defined and applied by innovative creators of library management and e-commerce systems. These software creators might even use hidden organizing principles that would not necessarily work in the best interests of users. The forces that produce these new systems already determine display and access, and we need to determine how best to model and work in these new environments.

Cast your minds back, back, back into the mists of time, all the way to May 2006, and you may recall that I mentioned a North American Serials Interest Group conference where Steve Shadle and Paul Weiss did a talk on “FRBR In the Real World.”

Now it’s in print in The Serials Librarian 52: 1/2, May 2007: FRBR In the Real World.

Abstract: Brief refresher of the main aspects of the FRBR model, a review of various uses of FRBR, and a discussion of how the group 1 entity types apply in a serials context. We focus on levels (work/expression/ manifestation/item and whole/part), the number of entities in particular situations, and terminology. Examples of real-world serials are used to illustrate how the FRBR resource model applies to serials.

Julian Everett Allgood, a cataloguer at New York University Libraries, has an article called “Serials and Multiple Versions, or the Inexorable Trend Toward Work-Level Displays,” in the new Library Resources & Technical Services (July 2007, 51:3). Here’s the abstract:

The proliferation of multiple versions for bibliographic works presents numerous challenges to the cataloger and, by extension, to the cataloguser. Fifteen years after the Multiple Versions Forum held in Airlie, Virginia, online public access catalog (OPAC) users continue to grapple with confusing displays representing numerous serial manifestations (i.e., versions) resulting from the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules’ (AACR2) cardinal principle (Rule 0.24). Two initiatives offer hope for more coherent OPAC displays in light of a renewed focus upon user needs: the ongoing revision of AACR2, and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’ Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. A third potential tool for improving OPAC displays exists within a series of standards that have developed to parallel library needs, and today offer a robust communications medium: the MARC 21 authority, bibliographic, and holdings formats. This paper summarizes the challenges posed by multiple versions and presents an analysis of current and emerging solutions.

Rule 0.24 has changed over various revisions of AACR, and Allgood gives the old version and the new one. As of 2002, Rule 0.24 reads, “It is important to bring out all aspects fo the item being described, including its content, its carrier, its type of publication, its bibliographic relationships, and whether it is published or unpublished. In any given area of the description, all relevant aspects should be described. As a rule of thumb, the cataloger should follow the more specific rules applying to the item being cataloged, whenever they differ from general rules.”

“Carrier” refers to the medium used for the publication: Can I get the article I want online, or do I have to go to the shelf and find the right issue of the journal? Allgood says, “Users are more interested in obtaining the journal article content than in the manifestation-level details of the serial title in which the article is published.” Very true!

For an earlier and oft-cited paper about this issue, read Content vs. Carrier by Lynne Howarth.

Rebecca Kemp has a paper coming out later this year, but, happily, we can download a copy now: Catalog/Cataloging Changes and Web 2.0 Functionality: New Directions for Serials (883 KB PDF) (The Serials Libarian 53:4).

ABSTRACT. This article presents an overview of some of the important recent developments in cataloging theory and practice and online catalog design. Changes in cataloging theory and practice include the incorporation of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records principles into catalogs, the new Resource Description and Access cataloging manual, and the new CONSER Standard Record. Web 2.0 functionalities and advances in search technology and results displays are influencing online catalog design. The paper ends with hypothetical scenarios in which a catalog, enhanced by the developments described, fulfills the tasks of finding serials articles and titles.

… The paper will be organized into four sections, the first of which will review recent changes in cataloging theory that have yet to be fully developed into cataloging practice, namely, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Introducing identifiers into serial records in accordance with FRBR entities will allow better collocation of like titles and differentiation between unlike titles. This section will conclude with a view of the potential serial “superwork record.”

(Thanks to Jonathan Rochkind for putting me wise to this. He recommends it.)

Two days ago Tom Delsey gave this to the Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of AACR: Analysis of the Proposed CONSER Standard Record vis à vis RDA, CONSER being the Cooperative Online Serials Program. It says, “The following is an analysis of recommendations on cataloguing rules, rule interpretations, and practices set out in appendix M of the Access Level Record for Serials Working Group’s final report as they relate to the development of RDA.

There’s one paragraph about FRBR in Delsey’s report, and I’ll quote it all here.

More importantly, however, the relationships that will be defined in RDA (based on the FRBR model and the relationship types defined by Tillett) treat translations and language editions as modifications of a work. RDA will therefore provide instructions on reflecting the primary relationship between a translation or language edition and the related work (i.e., the work realized by that translation or language edition) by means of an identifier, a name (i.e., a controlled access point), or a description representing the related work. Following the FRBR model, RDA will also provide instructions on reflecting, if necessary, the relationship between a translation or language edition and a related expression (i.e., the specific language version used as the basis for that translation or language edition) by means of an identifier, a name (i.e., a controlled access point), or a description representing the related expression. But RDA will not provide instructions on reflecting the relationship between a translation or language edition and another manifestation (i.e., a manifestation embodying the original language expression of the work). That is because both the FRBR model and the relationship types defined by Tillett categorize translations and language editions as expressions of a work, and therefore define a relationship involving a translation or language edition as either a primary relationship between an expression and the work realized by the expression or as an expression-to-expression relationship, but not as an expression-to-manifestation relationship. If the intent of the CONSER recommendation is to allow the construction of an added entry using the title proper of the original manifestation rather than a uniform title for the work embodied in that manifestation, introducing instructions in RDA to support the recommendation would effectively require defining a new relationship type(s) to cover the relationship between a resource embodying a translation or language edition and a related manifestation embodying another language version of the same work (i.e., a relationship that would function as an expression-to-manifestation relationship). Defining such a relationship would seriously compromise the alignment of RDA both with the FRBR model and with the relationship types defined by Tillett.

(Seen on the AUTOCAT mailing list, posted by Nathalie Schulz.)

Pat Riva, chair of the group, sent along a pointer to updates to the list of meeting and activity reports of the FRBR Review Group. Two sets of minutes from the August meetings in Seoul are now up.

First, there’s the FRBR Review Group Meeting Report, 20 August 2006 (162 KB PDF). I strongly agree with this quote; this same thinking is what led me to OpenFRBR:

Discussion focused on the recommendation that the RG should give more priority to advocacy, specifically developing evidence-based arguments that demonstrate the value of FRBR. This recommendation stems from the observation that vendors have a perception that FRBR implementation is costly, and that purchasers of systems are not sufficiently aware of the benefits of FRBR for end users to request it. Demonstration projects have great potential in demonstrating value concretely.

The other new report is Working Group on Aggregates Meeting Report, 20 August 2006 (174 KB PDF). Aggregates are tricky, and that’s why there’s a special group looking into them.

The discussion centered on a debate describing two distinct models for aggregates (independently created works published together).

Examples: Audio CD, Web sites, Conference proceedings, Anthologies of poetry and/or prose literature, Song/music books, Trilogies, Conference proceedings, Serials (collections that are intended to be together), Monographic series (collections that are intended to be together)

Model 1: The whole is a manifestation that functions as the glue that holds a set of works together.

Model 2: The whole is a work in and of itself: a “work-of-works.”

Proposed activity: The group will collect examples of aggregates, whose relationships will be described using each of the two models under review.

This is important work and I look forward to the results. I’ll have to think over some examples and see which model works best. It’s a knotty issue.

The spring 2006 issue of CONSERline has a section on FRBR:

Our opportunities as serials specialists include working with developers of new systems to make use of FRBR for accurately displaying serial “families” of related serials and formats. The very thought provoking program on serials and FRBR at NASIG provided many ideas on how FRBR can be used to think through relationships between serials and displaying them to users, but more work is needed with its application to serials in evolving systems.

Regina Reynolds (LC) and Diane Boher (NLM) are co-chairs of the PCC group that developed basic record requirements for a serial in any format using FRBR user tasks. As part of the access level record for serials project, the group developed cataloging guidelines aimed at reducing redundancies, making fuller use of system-display capabilities, and providing for the possibility of vendor or publisher supplied data being added to records at a later time. A pilot study was conducted involving 13 institutions to compare records created at the access level with those created at a fuller level.

There’s more, with some links. CONSER works on cataloguing serials. Related link: CONSER Task Group on FRBR and Continuing Resources.

There was a session at the North American Serials Interest Group conference on 5 and 6 May (see the program guide). Paul Weiss (University of California at San Diego) and Steve Shadle (University of Washington) did “FRBR in the Real World:”

Come see FRBR in action! We will present several real-life serial case studies and lead discussions with the audience about the ways FRBR’s conceptual model might be applied to each. Which cases are straightforward? Which are complex and merit further work by the developers of FRBR? We will also present mockups of ILS screens to show how these decisions might affect staff and public use of our data and systems. Come fine-tune your FRBR abilities, and contribute to the ongoing community discussions toward the refinement of the FRBR model.

Dalene Hawthorne left an enthusiastic comment about it on a blog:

The second session I attended yesterday was about FRBR in the Real World, and was presented by Paul J. Wiess & Steve Shadle. Here’s the gold of NASIG for me: Everything I know about FRBR I learned at NASIG. This session helped remind me of what FRBR is all about (which I learned at a previous NASIG conference, of course), and I was even able to explain it to a few colleagues after the session. I’m always less fearful of what is coming my way after attending a NASIG conference, and this is a classic example. I’ve been thinking “Oh, I’ve got to get my library ready for FRBR,” when all I really need to be thinking is “I just need to start explaining this model to my cataloging staff so they understand what’s going on out there and don’t get all worried.” Cool.

I noticed a presentation at the 2005 ALA Midwinter that deserves a link. (I found it by checking on the FRBR tag at Delicious.)

John Espley, from the library system vendor VTLS, gave a presentation called FRBR and ERM: A Vendor’s Perspective (1 MB Power Point) at the Codified Innovations: Data Standards and Their Useful Applications session. The second half is about electronic resources management (subscription and access information to online journals). The first half, about FRBR, discusses continuing resources, in this case Atlantic Monthly and its name changes over the years, with lots of screenshots showing how its bibliographic history can be organized. On the conclusion slide one of his points is about “super works,” but as I recall the FRBR people have come down pretty strongly against this, saying that there are many groups of works, and lots of relationships between the works, but we shouldn’t confuse things by adding another level to the hierarchy and talking about super works. The Working Group on Aggregates will clear this up.