A special issue of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly will be devoted to The FRBR Family of Models. Since 1998 when Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records was first published by IFLA, the effort to develop and apply FRBR has been extended in many innovative and experimental directions. A special issue of CCQ in 2004 edited by Patrick LeBeouf was titled FRBR: Hype, or Cure-All? and included papers exploring the origins and extension of FRBR, as well as a survey of specific applications.
Submissions to the present volume should address an aspect related to the extended family of FRBR models, dialogues between the FRBR Family and other modeling technologies, and/or any specific applications of the FRBR family.
Ideas may include any of the following topics:
- Analysis of FRAD or FRSAD
- Interrelationships between FRAD, FRBR, FRSAD
- Modelling of aggregates.
- Applications of FRBR and family
- Analysis or comparisons of RDA, REICAT and other codes based on FRBR entities and relationships
- FRBRoo and its extensions, or applications
- The FRBR/CRM Dialogue
- Wider acceptance of FRBR in applications
Or any other topic that addresses the FRBR Family.
Proposals of no more than 300 words to be sent by May 31, 2011 to the guest editor, Richard Smiraglia (firstname.lastname@example.org). Decisions will be communicated to contributors no later than June 24, 2011. Delivery date of manuscripts for peer-review: [October 1, 2011]. Each article should be in the range of 5,000–8,000 words. Instructions for authors can be found at http://www.informaworld.com/0163-9374.
Acceptance of a proposal does not guarantee publication. All manuscript submissions will be subject to double-blind peer-review. Publication is scheduled for CCQ vol. 50 in 2012.
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly is dedicated to gathering and sharing information in the field of bibliographic organization. This highly respected journal considers the full spectrum of creation, content, management, use, and usability of bibliographic records and catalogs, including the principles, functions, and techniques of descriptive cataloging; the wide range of methods of subject analysis and classification; provision of access for all formats of materials; and policies, planning, and issues connected to the effective use of bibliographic data in catalogs and discovery tools. The journal welcomes papers of practical application as well as scholarly research. All manuscripts are peer reviewed. Once published, papers are widely available through Taylor & Francis’ Informaworld database and other outlets.
Richard P. Smiraglia
Editor-in-Chief, Knowledge Organization
Professor, Information Organization Research Group,
School of Information Studies
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
Seen on David Bigwood’s Catalogablog, quoting something else:
IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR)
Invitation to participate:
Review of “Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) — Draft Report” Available through: http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/FRSAR/index.html or directly from: http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/FRSAR/report090623.pdf (2,800 kb)
Comments deadline: July 31, 2009
FRSAD is the new name for FRSAR, just as FRAD started as FRANAR, Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records. Which you can now hold in your hands, because Functional Requirements for Authority Data is finished and now in book form.
This book represents one portion of the extension and expansion of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. FRBR has been published as Nr 19 in the present Series. It contains a further analysis of attributes of various entities that are the centre of focus for authority data (persons, families, corporate bodies, works, expressions, manifestations, items, concepts, objects, events, and places), the name by which these entities are known, and the controlled access points created by cataloguers for them. The conceptual model describes the attributes of these entities and the relationships between them.
It costs €69.95 or USD $84 for North Americans.
There are no links on IFLA’s site to a downloadable FRAD, and there’s no mention of the FRSAD draft. The FRSAD group is hosting the draft on their own web site. Neither group announced their news on the FRBR mailing list. I’m bewildered. I assume the final FRAD text will be available to download soon. Open access to FRBR was a major contributor to its success.
At first I thought it was the pint of cider I’d knocked back over lunch that made the discussions of the Working Group on Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) difficult to follow, but I soon realized that the problem was my complete lack of knowledge about what they were discussing.
There isn’t much about FRSAR on the public web, and the IFLA web site doesn’t even list the current working group (WG) members, though it does say Marcia Lei Zeng is the chair and Athena Salaba and Maja Žumer are co-chairs. There were twelve people at the table (later joined by David Miller, making thirteen!), and I caught the names of some other others: Ed O’Neill and Diane Vizine-Goetz of OCLC, Lois Mai Chan, Jonathan Furner, Päivi Pekkarinen, and Dorothy McGarry. I apologize for missing the others.
For some background, have a look at these:
Here’s an extract from an ALCTS newsletter from February 2008 that gives the gist of it:
Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records group (FRSAR) members have had several meetings through emails, conference calls, and face-to-face meetings since May 2006. Major outcomes include the definitions of user tasks, a proposal of a new model, and a plan for the final report.
The group held three meetings on August 20 and 24, 2007 at IFLA World Library and Information Congress in Durban, and extensively discussed the proposed model and Group 3 entities. Major outcomes may be summarized as:
- FRSAR confirms what FRBR has already defined: WORK has-subject THEMA. “Thema” is the term used temporarily to refer to anything that is the subject of a work. Thema includes any FRBR entities.
- FRSAR proposes the new relationship: THEMA has the appellation NOMEN. “Nomen” is a term used temporarily to refer to any alphanumeric, sound, visual, etc. symbol or combination of symbols by which a thema is known, referred to or addressed.
- The THEMA-NOMEN relationship is consistent with what FRAD has proposed in its draft report, to separate what a thing is (the concept) from what it is known, referred to or addressed (its name, label).
- FRSAR group plans to have a draft final report available in the spring of 2008.
To turn up other stuff, search Google for frsar and keep your eye out for mentions of “thema” and “nomen” because you’ll be hearing a lot about them later this year when the FRSAR draft comes out (or so is the plan).
Glenn Patton of OCLC was at the table to discuss FRAD, he chairing the WG on that, and FRAD took up the first hour of the meeting. He said they’d made some changes to the latest draft based on comments, and part of it will be removed and made available separately.
There was some involved discussion of what is an entity, why name and controlled access point are two different entities and not the same, etc. Patton said they wanted to separate the attributes of a person, the names by which they are known, and the access points by which they are found. It seemed easiest to do this by having different entities. Person is related to name is related controlled access point. “Define your entities at least in part by what you want to do with them,” he said, which is why, for example, Family and Agency are different from Corporate Body though they’re really kinds of Corporate Body. It all got rather philosophical and detailed as did, indeed, the entire meeting.
There was discussion of Title and Other Designation as part of name or not. E.g. Jr, III, Professor, Mrs. Discussion of difference between LCCN numbers (as identifier of a record about a person) and social insurance numbers (as identifier of a person). People are unique, but their names aren’t, so we need unique identifiers. But an identifier is a kind of name!
Around 2 the Patton grilling stopped and everyone turned to their FRSAR draft, which no-one else has seen, so the five or six observers were a bit out of it.
Žumer led a discussion about just what a thema is. It’s an entity, it’s a superclass, it’s a supertype, it’s what FRAD calls “bibliographic entities” in its Diagram 2, it’s “things that can potentially enter into subject relationships” as Furner put it. Work is in a many-to-many relationship with Thema, and Thema is in a many-to-many relationship with Nomen, which is basically the name of the subject, as I understand it. (Just as a in FRAD Person and Name are different entities. The map is not the territory.)
It was all getting quite philosophical in here about the nature of a thing in itself and then how we discuss it and name it and how we represent it in our systems. I’ll be honest with you. I zoned out a bit in here. Figures 5.7 and 5.8 of the FRSAR draft were scrutinized. There was more discussion of attributes of entities, then a look at “the Italian model,” and then at 3 they took a break. I left them to it and after a quick chat with Žumer and Vizine-Goetz in the hall I obtained a strong cup of coffee.
This meeting, of a Working Group, was an interesting contrast to the FRBR Review Group. FRSAR doesn’t exist yet, so a table full of experts get togther for two four-hour meetings this month, on top of online discussions and meetings at ISKO and other conferences, and hash out drafts and discuss them and argue over fundamental issues of subject records and how to model them. It’s a slow process. The FRSAR draft should be quite interesting when it’s out, and as FRAD moves to the final version it’s all fitting together, with each of FRAD, FRSAR, and FRBR affecting the other. Slowly it’s all locking into place.
At the big American Library Association conference in California a couple of weeks ago there was a well-attended session called Getting Ready for RDA and FRBR: What You Need to Know. The indefatigable Barbara Tillett (Library of Congress) and Glenn Patton (OCLC) were there, and Barbara Bushman (National Library of Medicine) filled in for Shawne Miksa who couldn’t make it. That blog post has some background information on all three and links to some useful things if you’re new to it all. There’s more on this page that has links to all slides and so on from conference presentations but you’ll have to scroll down a bit to the right section.
You Know FRBR, But Have You Ever Met FRAD was the next day, Sunday 29 June. Glenn Patton spoke again, as did Ed Jones (National University Library), and Athena Salaba (Kent State) and Lois Mai Chan (University of Kentucky) talked about FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records). Slides are also available but again you’ll have to scroll down a bit or just search the page for FRAD.
I wish there were audio recordings of these talks!
There’s a lot of talk going around about Web 2.0 and Library 2.0, but this isn’t about that, so don’t worry. Here’s some mail I sent to the FRBR mailing list last week:
Are there any plans, or is it expected that, FRBR will be revised? Next fall it will be ten years (!) since the final report was made. Since 1997 there have been implementations that have turned up difficulties with the model and as it’s become better known it’s been exposed to some good critical thought and applied in many different areas.
There are working groups on aggregates (which are hard to handle) and expressions (which cause confusion) and harmonization with CIDOC’s Conceptual Reference Model (which I think will lead to an object-oriented FRBR). Functional Requirements for Authority Records was out for comment and that group is thinking about them now, and Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records is underway. AACR is being turned into the FRBRish Resource Description and Access.
That’s a lot of work going on. When these groups have finished their work, will everything be brought together, all the problems resolved or at least clarified with suggested solutions, and something like FRBR 2.0 issued? The minutes of the August Review Group’s meeting in Oslo say, “Given the importance of the topics to be addressed, the newly formed WG on Aggregates will presumably prove to be a major element in the RG’s policy for the two years to come.” What’ll happen after that? I’m curious.
No-one replied, but if I do hear an answer, I’ll let you know. If you know, leave a comment!
I added links to the FRANAR (Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records) and FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records) Working Groups to the Reference section on the left. They’re part of IFLA and very closely related to the FRBR Review Group (which used to be a Working Group, but after their report had been out for a while, they changed their nature). The FRANAR page will lead you to the draft of FRAR (Functional Requirements for Authority Records) that has been discussed here before. The FRSAR group was just formed in April 2005 and I’m not sure where they are in their work; all that’s on their web page right now is their terms of reference.
I’ll mention FRANAR/FRAR and FRSAR things here as they happen. By the way, if you haven’t read the FRAR draft, you should.
UPDATE: I added a link to the RDA home page, too.