Riley, What Do You Want Out of a FRBRized Data Service
Jenn Riley asked What do you want out of a FRBRized data web service? on the code4lib mailing list Tuesday.
At Indiana University we’re working on a project that will help us see concretely what FRBRized  library data and discovery systems might look like.  One of our project goals is to share the raw FRBRized data widely so that others can look at it to see how it’s structured, reuse it, improve on it, comment on the FRBRization effectiveness, etc. We’re planning on allowing remote/Web Services/API/SRU/some machine-to-machine method like that access to the data. As we’re starting to think about how we should set that up, we thought it would be useful to gather some use cases from the code4lib community, as it’s the folks here that are experimenting services like this. So if there were FRBRized data available to you (at least for FRBR group 1 and group 2 entities; *maybe* group 3 as well), what would you do with it? What kinds of questions would your service (discovery system, whatever) ask a service that made this data available? What kinds of information would you want in a response? Would you have uses that called for downloading of “all” data at once or would you instead be better off with real-time queries to a web service? It’s questions like that we’re interested in brainstorming with this group about.
Read the rest of the thread for follow-up discussion.
David Bigwood, FRBR a Dead End?
David Bigwood posted FRBR a Dead End? on his cataloguing blog Catalogablog about cataloguing. He’d been to a conference and came away thinking: “One thing that hit me over the head was that FRBR might be a poor model for our data.” Read the comments, from Shawne Miksa, Jonathan Rochkind, Ed Summers, Ross Singer, and some other usual suspects.
Dueber and Rochkind on data models
There was a long thread on ngc4lib that got into a discussion of data models with a lot about FRBR coming up, but I can’t find it in the archives. I can still point to some related blog posts that came out the mailing list talk, though:
- Jonathan Rochkind, Serialization vs Metadata Schema/Vocabulary: “RDA _theoretically_ uses FRBR (rather than ISBD) as the referenced ‘metadata schema’. This to my mind is actually the _most important_ part of RDA, the problem is that the RDA effort didn’t really realize how important and how challenging this was, they didn’t really realize what it entailed, and didn’t take it seriously — perhaps until fairly recently.”
- Bill Dueber, Data Structures and Serializations: “Anyone advocating or dismissing a data model based on the data structure or serialization most-often associated with that model is missing the goddamn point.”
ELAG workshop on FRBR, June in Helsinki
Discovery interfaces 2: FRBR and identifiers working group, a workshop by Jennifer Gatenby, is scheduled for the European Library Automation Group’s 2010 conference in Helsinki in June. I hope this gets recorded, or at least that slides go up.
Resource discovery relies on persistent and well diffused identifiers. Related to discovery is access and rights management and they too rely on persistent identifiers. The aim of the workshop is to discuss the identifiers that relate to resources and their creators and how well they fit the FRBR model. What proactive roles should libraries be playing in relation to identifiers, their maintenance and diffusion?
Many identifiers will be considered. Among those at the work level are the ISTC (International standard text code), OWI (OCLC work identifier), ISWC (Musical works), ISAN (Audio-visual works) and OWI. At the manifestation level there are ISBN, ISSN, ISMN (music) v-ISAN, DOI, Handle, ARK, LC and other national bibliography identifiers and the OCN (OCLC control number). For creators, there is the new draft International standard ISNI and the emergent ORCID (Open Research Contributor Identifier).
Tasks for the workshop will include examining the existing identifier landscape and its completeness, examining the role of identifiers in discovery and in linking data.
Carol ?, MARC, FRBR, and a Whole New World
From MARC, FRBR and a Whole New World, a blog post from someone probably named Carol.
Recently after a very basic copy cataloging course, a student asked me if it was ok if she added the electronic version of an item to the bibliographic record for the print, even when they are not exactly the same edition. This is not the first time this question has come up and I doubt it will be the last. I told her that technically, no. This is not sanctioned by The Powers That Be. However, if it works in her library catalog and the patrons like it and the other librarians like it – why not? I emphasized that this would be a Big No-No if she was adding the record to OCLC or selling it but if it is in her library, in her catalog, she can do whatever she needs to do to help her patrons – this is pretty much the point of the catalog.
… At an ALA session in the recent few years (I think it was 2008 Anaheim), John Estes from VTLS stood up and spoke of “super” records. It was the most brilliant thing I’d heard from an established ILS in a very long time. He demonstrated how they basically ‘bumped’ up the generic data that applied across all instances of an item and then hooked the non-generic information to it in a cool way. To put it in FRBR terms, they create an Expression then hook the Manifestations to it (with the Items hooked to the Manifestations). BRILLIANT! This would solve the dilemma of ‘how do I connect my electronic and print versions into one record?’.