Here are some slides on RDA by Diane Hillmann. Although Diane posted this slide presentation 6 months ago, the information is still very useful and provides a good overview of RDA. For those interested in metadata in general, see Diane’s website for her business called Metadata Management at: http://managemetadata.com/.

The whole question of the relevance of the user tasks set out in FRBR and adopted by RDA came up in several threads on the listserv NGC4Lib. The actually thread is rather short on the topic itself, which can be found on the NGC4Lib archives for the month of October.

This thread originated in another discussion, namely that on the Cooperative Cataloging begun by Jim Weinheimer. If you are not familiar with Jim, then go to his newly created website and project called the Cooperative Cataloging Rules. In a post to the NGC4Lib listerv, Jim explained that the user tasks from FRBR were outdated and do not reflect what his users want or do in his library. Remember that these user tasks are: Find, Identify, Select, Obtain.

As a separate thread, Shawne Miksa asked why these user tasks were outdated. This began a short but informative take on user tasks and how individuals search and use documents as well as information.

Here are some highlights:

• Do users look for documents or information?
  • In rereading the section of FRBR on user tasks, there is a definite focus on documents that users find in a library catalog. To cite FRBR: “For the purposes of this study the functional requirements for bibliographic records are defined in relation to the following generic tasks that are performed by users when searching and making use of national bibliographies and library catalogues”. Is it really the case that users look for documents and in particular documents found in library catalogs? There is information out there that suggests that users search for information and documents. Those who work in libraries understand that this is true. That is why most libraries have a reference desk, which is sometimes called an Information desk. However, users also like to discover information. This discovery is a process that does not require a library catalog. In many case for users, the library catalog is the last place to go. In this sense, how are we to understand the user tasks? Are they truly outdated or just plain wrong? Jim brought up the idea that FRBR hasn’t been tested and there should be more studies on how users search information or documents. Then, thanks to this research, user tasks should be formalized.
• What do users do after finding a document or information?
  • Karen Coyle highlighted that it is not so much of interest how users find information but what they do with it afterward. How do users use information? If we have an idea how users use information or documents to gather information, then it will be easier to develop technologies that help them during this process. In response to this, the fact that libraries never worried about how users used information was brought forward. Yet, libraries say that they are in the information business. So, users do not want to only find a book on a subject. This is just the beginning. Determining how this book came about and how this subject relates to others is important. This is a process of making connections -links to other related sources of information. Of course, the discovery process cannot be done entirely by a third party. With the Semantic Web, there are ways to create links and transform the way we use information into new and exciting ways.
• Why put so much effort into cataloging items if this data isn’t or can’t be used?
  • Library catalogs tend to have an enormous wealth of information. This data is stored in a format that is not web friendly. In many cases, much of the data is not even displayed to the user since this is a separate step to get to more details or more information. Though not all the information appeals to everyone, I think the effort put into cataloging should not go into systems that are not web friendly. We should be able to get our library data out there on the web where it can be used and re-used by others in ways librarians never thought of.
• Do libraries have information or documents with information?
  • Libraries are much more than places with documents or even information. They have become community centers vibrant with events, support systems, documents, information, and opportunities. What I think libraries have not done well is to transform that vibrant community that is live and in person to the online world of the web. For a long time, many libraries have created a web presence based on their library catalog. Does the OPAC convey the richness of the services provided by the library? In this sense, users are seeking much more than just information and documents with information at libraries. Libraries need a web presence that responds to this need as well.

Rick J. Block has been speaking on RDA for some time now. I recently came across his website via William Denton’s FRBR Blog. The page is entitled, RDA: Victors or Victims. This is actually a presentation that Rick did for the New York Technical Services group. Last year, he presented, RDA: Boondoggle or Boon? at the New England Technical Services group.

At both links provided above, you will find not only Rick’s Powerpoint (in PPT or PDF format) but also a list of information on RDA ranging from articles to blogs and discussion lists. This is another great source to get information on RDA, FRBR, and FRAD.

The listserv, the Next Generation Catalog for Libraries has been extremely busy this last month. Three discussions really stand out: FRBR’s Group 1 entities and what type of identifiers are associated with them, in particular works, expressions and manifestations ; Tim Berners Lee and the Semantic Web ; FRBR’s user tasks and their continued relevance.

Unlike some listservs, these threads can be read in their entirety online. William Denton’s FRBR blog as well as some others have already advertised this to the community. I would like to re-advertise these discussions because of their importance in understanding FRBR and RDA among other things. In doing so, I would like to highlight some points from these threads. I will do this in a series of 3 blogs one on identifiers, a second on user tasks, and then end with the thread on Tim Berners Lee, which is still very active on NGC4LIB. I posted last week on FRBR and identifiers. This post will be about the thread on Tim Berners-Lee and the Semantic web.

Don’t let the title of the thread fool you. This discussion went everywhere! There are still some replies to the listserv over the past week that continue the discussion. Remember to look at the archives for October and November. Basically, the thread began with the posting of a recent talk by Sir Tim Berners-Lee at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/08/Next_Decade_Technologies_Changing_the_World-Tim-Berners-Lee. This 38 minute interview was the beginning to a very rich discussion about data, how to identify data, and how to get data out on the web to be used and re-used.

Here are some points that I found of particular interest:

• How do we get data out on the web? Will RDA help get the data out on the web?
  • This is an excellent question that comes up several times in this thread. This is also a question that came up in the recent OCLC webinar on what they are doing about RDA. For the most part, library data is stored away in catalogs that are really not being minded or search by search engines. The wealth of information is there but it is not in a web friendly format. As Jim Weinheimer and others pointed out, it is essential to get that information out there. However, there was mention that the Library of Congress library data is out there and the Internet Archives’ data is out on the web as well. So why aren’t people looking at it? Isn’t RDA and its relation to the semantic web supposed to help not only get library data out there but also get people looking at it? These questions really didn’t get formalized in terms of answers. Yet, it was interesting to follow the trail of people’s thoughts. Yes we need to get library data out there. RDA theoretically will help us do this because of its relationship to the semantic web. However, will this incite users to come and look at this data?
• RDA and user taks
  • The discussion about RDA and the web led to the question of the relevance of the user tasks that RDA brought over from FRBR. These user tasks are: find, identify, select, obtain. FRBR was published in 1998, more than a decade ago. Do these tasks represent what users do when searching for information? Remember that FRAD, FRBR’s sibling for authority work, has slightly different user tasks. What does this say about users tasks?
• The idea of a domain model (RDFS, OWL ontology, RDF)
  • One of the reasons that RDA will be useful for the semantic web according to some on the thread is that it is based on a domain model which can be expressed as an RDFS/OWL ontology. From the thread, this domain model is important since it provides a framework with which to work from. Even if this framework contains flaws, it is still a helpful framework that can evolve as the web evolves since it is tied to the language used on the web. This is useful since it also means that RDA will evolve with the web.
• Multiple meanings of FRBR and RDA: FRBR, RDA, RDAonline
  • This was a very interesting post by Karen Coyle. I think she highlighted a huge problem. With all the discussions about RDA, FRBR, and the product of RDA that is going to be pubished sometime in the future, a multitude of interpretations surrounding these concepts have arisen. Karen was right to point out that we will have 3 things: FRBR, RDA, and RDAonline. These are 3 different things that serve 3 different purposes. In addition, we have to remember that RDA has inherited many legacy issues from AACR2. This is one of the reasons why RDA is criticised by some as not going far enough. To make matters more confusing, there is also the Metadata Registry, which is related to RDA, RDAonline, and FRBR but is its own enterprise with its own mission.
• OLAC and WEMI
  • It has been known the audio-visual community has had trouble with the notions of work, expression, manifestation, and item for quite some time know. Until this thread, I really hadn’t found a good explanation as to the reasons why as well as what OLAC planned to do about it. Kelly C. McGrath wrote about OLAC’s position on Wed. 21, 2009. She was responding to the importance of the WEMI (work, expression, manifestation, and item) model as a good starting point. Kelly writes: “We are trying to take a practical approach. At a theoretical level, the four levels as defined by FRBR make a lot of sense (although if you , for example, include expressions of expression, it would seem you could have even more levels).However, when we came to recording things on different records, it quickly became apparent that the split between Work and Expression (e.g., things like color, aspect ratio, and costume designer only at the Expression level) was not very workable for us. We therefore settled on a model that uses primarily a Work/Primary Expression (usually the original public release if applicable) record and a Manifestation record. Information like color and aspect ratio of a DVD in hand are meaningless unless you know the original, intended values. So a 1:33 (full screen) DVD Manifestation of a TV program that was originally broadcast in 1:33 and of a film that was in 2.66:1 don’t mean the same thing to the purist. The purist would be happy with the former and not with the latter modified version. So we want to record the original, intended value at the Work level so that it can be compared with particular Expressions. We thought it was most practical to have the information that we intended to re-use for all instances in a single record. It is also in line with the way film reference sources and online databases like IMDB display information.We also think, from a practical perspective, that most Expression information can be coded in machine-interpretable form in the Manifestation record and a display of Expressions could be generated automatically. Every time a cataloger gets a new Manifestation, this information has to be reevaluated again. Moving image expressions tend to be multi-faceted so looking for an Expression record for the exact combination in hand could be time-consuming and finding expression records for each individual aspect is no better than just encoding the characteristics in the manifestation record.

    We don’t think a colorized version of a film is a new Work. Rather we would call it a new Expression and record it in the Manifestation record in such a way that it will be obvious to the user that the color of this version has been modified.

    It is also not clear to me that the hierarchical approach of choosing a work, then an expression, then a manifestation is always the order that users need. For moving images, for example, users might want to limit to those works available on DVD or usable in English up front.

    One way this might be displayed to users can be seen in Figure 8 (near the bottom) at http://kmcgrath.iweb.bsu.edu/MIWgrant.htm. The top facets are the WPE facets and the left facets come primarily from Manifestation records. So the original color or aspect ratio might be at the top and the ones for the available manifestations on the left. These comparison might be more useful in the WPE record view in Figure 9 (very bottom) where the original aspect ratio is given in the body of the WPE record and the available aspect ratios are given on the left. It might also be useful to label the non-original aspect ratio(s) as “modified.”

    FWIW, CEN (European Committee for Standardization) has also come to the conclusion that it is meaningless to talk of a Cinematographic Work outside of its realization. “The concept of cinematographic work comprises both the intellectual or artistic content and the process of realisation in a cinematographic medium.” (http://www.filmstandards.org/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=start&cache=cache&media=cen-tc372_n0167_4th_wd_csh00102-r3_2008-12-03.pdf.)”

• How do we share information and metadata?
• FRBR, does it work best with an already large database of bibliographic data? Does it require that catalogers search for information they might not know or have access to? — Linking data, sharing data, …
• Identity management
• Are libraries outdated? Why aren’t people going to libraries?

I could list so many more topics from this discussion. Even though this thread is long and can be found in the archives for both October and November 2009, the discussions are well worth the detour.

The listserv, the Next Generation Catalog for Libraries has been extremely busy this last month. Three discussions really stand out: FRBR’s Group 1 entities and what type of identifiers are associated with them, in particular works, expressions and manifestations ; Tim Berners Lee and the Semantic Web ; FRBR’s user tasks and their continued relevance.

Unlike some listservs, these threads can be read in their entirety online. William Denton’s FRBR blog as well as some others have already advertised this to the community. I would like to re-advertise these discussions because of their importance in understanding FRBR and RDA among other things. In doing so, I would like to highlight some points from these threads. I will do this in a series of 3 blogs one on identifiers, a second on user tasks, and then end with the thread on Tim Berners Lee, which is still very active on NGC4LIB.

FRBR has 3 entity groups. Group 1 is comprised of the WEMI or work, expression, manifestation, and item. Barbara Tillett has some excellent presentations out on the web on FRBR and RDA. She recently presented at the NISO webinar, Bibliographic Control Alphabet Soup. Under “agenda”, there is the possibility to download the slides from this event. Also, Barbara mentioned on the NGC4LIB listserv that she will be publishing another article on RDA.

In general, Group 1 are things either physical and concrete (manifestation and item) or abstract (work and expression). In RDA, attributes are used to describe and characterize these Group 1 entities. And relationships play a huge role in RDA to link works to other works, expressions or manifestations and so forth.

In the thread from NGC4LIB, it was asked whether any in the group 1 had any inherent identifiers. The example of authority records and their identifier or ISBNs for books was given. This question prompted a discussion on not only the differences between work, expression, and manifestation but how it was possible to conceive of them with a unique identifier.

Here are some highlighted points:

• Can an OCLC numbers be considered an identifier for manifestations?
  • One of the problems raised about using OCLC numbers as identifiers was that not all resources have an OCLC number. Consider as an example many records sold by vendors that state specifically that they cannot be entered into OCLC but only be accessed under the terms of agreement reached by the institution and vendor.
  • Another issue was that in many OCLC records, one OCLC number refers to different ISBNs -perhaps the hardcover and the paperback editiions. In this sense, one OCLC number is used for 2 distinct manifestations.
• Can the International Standard Text Code be used as an identifier for works? Or can the ISTC be used as an identifier for expressions?
  • The issue is clear with these two questions. Is the ISTC number about “Moby Dick” and not the version, edition of a particular Moby Dick as Karen Coyle pointed out? In this way, the ISTC would not be an identifier for manifestations. Then, the ISTC identifier is perhaps used for expressions; some supported this suggestion in the thread. Yet, Karen Coyle highlighted that if several expressions could be linked together, this would create a work that could have a ISTC number for that grouping. Another similar example was that the text could receive a ISTC number and then there would be versions of it, such as the 3rd ed. with an introduction from a well-known scholar and a new completed timeline with different identifiers -perhaps a ISBN. The question is whether a ISTC number could be used for expressions or works.

What I found fascinating about this thread was of course the discussion between well versed and very knowledgeable people on FRBR. More than that, I was intrigued in how people were trying to use what is currently available, in this case ISTC identifiers, in order to help the library world sort out how to identify works, expressions, and manifestations. The reason this is so important is that RDA forces catalogers to think about and rethink how all the Group 1, 2, and 3 entities relate to one another as well as to the larger context of scholarly knowledge. In particular on the Internet, the way to create these relationships is by linking data. For this to happen, it is necessary to have a unique and permanent identifier so that one thing can point to another. This is the type of work currently being done by the Metadata Registry and their vocabularies as well as the SKOS project at the Library of Congress for their authorities and vocabularies.

If you have time, definitely take a detour to read this thread. It is short but very informative.

Bloggen(How to catalogue a Hiccup) til Suzie Degrasse har en bra artikkel om de forskjellige katalogsystemene som finnes.
Artikkelen er på engelsk, men det går nok bra:-)

Her kan du lese den.

The 2009 conference of the Nova Scotia Association of Library Technicians was held Friday, October 23rd in Kentville, Nova Scotia.

My presentation was in two parts. 

Part 1 explained the move toward Social Catalogues, with specific references to AquaBrowser, the social catalogue overlay which my library has chosen.  We are still in the beta testing phase at present, but we are excited about the day it goes ‘live’. 

The ‘Social’ Library Catalogue

Part II gave a rudimentary explanation of RDA, FRBR and the changes we are making to the catalogue in order to make it a more efficient online tool.

RDA is on the way

My handouts included many useful web links on the topics of RDA and FRBR.

RDA
http://www.rdaonline.org/
RDA FAQ
http://www.rda-jsc.org/rdafaq.html
MARC Changes to accommodate RDA
http://www.loc.gov/marc/formatchanges-RDA.html
Joint Steering Committee for RDA
https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/rda.html
RDA Element Sets and Vocabularies
http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm

FRBR
The FRBR Blog:
http://www.frbr.org/
What is FRBR? a brochure created by Barbara Tillett of LC
http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.pdf
An explanation of FRBR from TechEssence.info
http://techessence.info/frbr
From FRBR to FRAD
http://www.ifla.org/files/hq/papers/ifla75/215-patton-en.pdfen.pdf

ColinAndShort have this very useful and funny website on RDA at: http://sites.google.com/site/codlinandshort/home.

All the links are real and lead to not just chapters of RDA but also to OCLC’s work with RDA, ONIX and FRBR for example.

The presentation makes for an enjoyable read and definitely less intimidating than the very dry texts that are usually presented on RDA and FRBR.

Not FRBR

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records is a conceptual model for bibliographic processes. It is a different way of thinking. It groups all things “bibliographic” into Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items. For example, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, as conceptualized by Harriet Beecher Stowe, is considered her “Work” and is abstract. The 1st printing with Hammatt Billings’ engravings that I decided to find in the library is a particular “Expression” of that work (as opposed to a non-illustrated expression). Say I wanted a large print version of that 1st edition, well that would be a “Manifestation” of that “Expression”.The physical copy I checked out would be the “Item”.

What does all this mean? Well FRBR will have an impact on cataloging as RDA (more on it later) comes into play probably next year. It should help out in authority control by reducing workload and repetition.

To read up on FRBR, the Library of Congress has a helpful PDF for you to check out at http://www.loc.gov/cds/FRBR.html

Also check out the FRBR blog at http://www.frbr.org/

Oh, and here is a link to the FRBR tool that will take a MARC record and FRBRize it into the 4 main entities: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/tool.html

Many of these resources have already been posted on other blogs. However, these relatively new updates on scope and mappings are conveniently located on the Joint Steering for Development of RDA at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/rda.html#scope. All of the updates are PDF documents with the general date of July 2009 [i.e. July 1, 2009].

The PDF documents are:

• RDA scope and structure
• RDA element analysis
• RDA to FRBR mapping
• RDA to FRAD mapping
• FRBR to RDA mapping
• FRAD to RDA mapping
• RDA objectives and principles

The PDF documents are rather short and average about 12-13 pages, the longest document being 35 pages. This is good news considering the lengthy RDA document itself. The documents have good and general information for those interested in the development of RDA and the relationship between RDA and FRBR and FRAD. I am finding the mappings useful to better understand the relationships between work, expression, manifestation, and item. The RDA element analysis is really interesting as it compares RDA to the DCMI Abstract model and the <indecs> Metadata Framework; if you’re interested in DOIs this is a good document to read.

Hopefully, more updates and helpful documents will be posted in the future.

A little while ago I went to one of the seminars that the National Library put on detailing the latest developments in bibliographic description Resource Description and Access or RDA. Initially as they discussed the new philosophy Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) I was quite excited.

Essentially FRBR considers that each work has a unique entry point and from that you can then describe that work in its various formats.  In many ways this is how I would organize my ultimate OPAC/LMS. My vision of the OPAC is that when a customer types in a search for a particular work, say The Fellowship of The Ring by J. R. R. Tolkein, they would get just one result despite how many variations the library holds. In a simple result display it would show with icons next to the title the various formats audiovisual, different editions, large print etc, and when moving into the fuller display you would have, say tabs with the details of each edition, and all the holdings would display in a single list. This would be much cleaner and simpler, especially when dealing with multiple editions, or even with multiple titles for the same work.

However my excitement was dampened as I realised that those in charge of MARC are unlikely to adopt the necessary changes that would allow that in a MARC record. And as such the LMS vendors are even less likely to alter the systems to enable an OPAC to work in that fashion.  In the end I came away thinking that with a little vision, the philosophy proposed could fundamentally make for a better OPAC for our users but that vision is yet to be seen.

I’m making my way through the FRSAD draft (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data), and now I’m starting to wonder about where and how genre terms will fit into the grand scheme of things. FRSAR only deals with ‘aboutness’, which excludes genre/form.  Maxwell has pointed out that genre is a mix of FRBR Group 3 entities, Concepts and Objects (the other two Group 3 entities being Place and Event.

RDA’s Section 7 on Subject Relationships, Section 10 on Recording Relationships between Concepts, Objects, Events and Places, and Appendix L (relationship designators for Group 3 entities)  have not yet made an appearance.

The term ‘genre’ doesn’t appear in the 144-page FRBR draft.  We need to look to 4.2.2 for Attributes of Works “Form of work”:

The form of work is the class to which the work belongs (e.g., novel, play, poem,
essay, biography, symphony, concerto, sonata, map, drawing, painting,
photograph, etc.).

In the section on Group 3 entities, in 3.2.7 Concept we find the following [emphasis mine]:

The entity defined as concept encompasses a comprehensive range of abstractions
that may be the subject of a work:  fields of knowledge, disciplines, schools of
thought (philosophies, religions, political ideologies, etc.), theories, processes,
techniques, practices, etc….

…For the purposes of this study concepts are treated as entities only to the extent
that they are the subject of a work (e.g., as the subject of a philosophical treatise,
of a critique of a school of thought, etc.).

But the genre or form is not the subject of a work; it is not what the work is about.  Of course, it is possible for a genre to be the subject of a work, and when it is, the term becomes a topical heading since it qualifies as ‘aboutness’.

Ok, I think I’m starting to get a sense of this.

There is a new book put out by IFLA that 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.

David Shotton

They’ve added characterization to citations present on websites using CiTO. You can encode citation frequencies using CiTO, too. Another purpose is to characterize the cited works themselves. In doing so, he has adopted the FRBR entity model. For an example, they made FRBR entities for Gone with the Wind. The move, while based on the novel is a new creative work. The novel can have a variety of expressions. For these and more reasons it makes it a good example.

SWAP also uses the FRBR classification, and CiTO has adopted terminology and definitions from SWAP. However, SWAP is  concerned with the metadata describing a single work. CiTO describes aspects of scholarly works out of scope for SWAP (e.g. relations between citing and cited works). Another similar ontology is BIBO, but that deals with legal works, and BIBO lacks terms essential to CiTO. BIBO is essentially orthogonal with CiTO. Further, BIBO doesn’t use the FRBR classification. SWAN is another ontology designed to characterize rhetorical statements with text. It is limited in scope and still under development (just a cygnet!) but clearly relevant to CiTO. They’re starting a collaboration with Tim Clark.

What is the proper home for this? It’s not a biological ontology, so maybe doesn’t belong in OBO? They also want a nice authoring tool.

FriendFeed Discussion: http://ff.im/4xwI9

Please note that this post is merely my notes on the presentation. They are not guaranteed to be correct, and unless explicitly stated are not my opinions. They do not reflect the opinions of my employers. Any errors you can happily assume to be mine and no-one else’s. I’m happy to correct any errors you may spot – just let me know!

For almost all of us, FRBR is a new language.  One we must learn to survive.

“Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records—or FRBR, sometimes pronounced FERBER —is a conceptual entity-relationship model developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) that relates user tasks of retrieval and access in online library catalogues and bibliographic databases from a user’s perspective.  It represents a more holistic approach to retrieval and access as the relationships between the entities provide links to navigate through the hierarchy of relationships. The model is significant because it is separate from specific cataloguing standards such as AACR2r or ISBD.”–Wikipedia

FRBR is built upon relationships between and among entities.  FRBR tries to look beyond the internal uses of a bibliographic record.   A user extracts the information from the bib record and uses it in conjunction with other resources.  Think of the information as going beyond the catalog to relate to other information on the Internet.  It is all about linking data.  Information that is not just used by our own library, but by the internet, and as such we must relate!

For up to date info visit the FRBR blog.

Is FRBR inextricably linked to RDA.  Me thinks so…  Underlying RDA are the conceptual models FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data).

Read Martha Yee’s post on Catalogablog

You can download Barbara Tillet’s brochure in .pdf format entitled “What is FRBR?” This brochure is available throught the Cataloging Distribution Service of the Library of Congress.

And not to be missed is Barbara Tillet’s  presentation on FRBR entitled: FRBR : things you should know but were afraid to ask. The webcast lasts about an hour.

And for those who need a visual here is one of the slides from Barbara Tillet’s presentation to APLA which depicts the entity-relationship model.

On Friday I attended the full day pre-conference session in Montreal on RDA – with some FRBR and FRAD thrown in. I wanted to hear Tom Delsey before he exits as the editor of RDA, and he drew out some of the major differences between AACR and RDA.

Although the RDA online tool still is not yet ready for prime time, there was a tantalizing demo which no doubt created more questions than answers.  While it promises to be a sophisticated tool, the learning curve may be substantial, which will certainly be an unfortunate distraction. However, it appears that by the time the product makes its actual debut,  there may be some  prefab workflows that are plug-and-play — at least, I hope so.  The ability to customize things will be great, but of course, that can only come later — you first have to gain some familiarity with the product, and understand the nature of the exercise.

Cataloguers don’t start from total scratch, and a content standard is not a self-contained universe without any reference points in the real world. We progress through a series of fact-checking exercises which emanate from our cataloguing assumptions, and we carry out these exercises according to various norms and conventions.

When we have identified a creator of a work and postulate a name for said creator, our conjecture will be checked by a lookup against other sources — e.g., authority files or bibliographic databases – including the parent institution’s catalogue– to see if our assumptions can be validated against other existing known entities –  other publications, or characteristics that we associate with the creator (birthplace or other factual info, for example), etc.

We first try to find an anchor, something that we know, and build upon that. So the case studies that will help illuminate the process (and highlight some of the difficulties) should progress from a variety of straight-forward simple scenarios and increase in complexity (e.g., music).

Here is another good general presentation from Barbara Tillett on FRBR entitled: FRBR : things you should know but were afraid to ask. The webcast lasts about 57 minutes.

The description from the website says:

This presentation for non-catalogers is intended to present basic concepts and benefits of using the FRBR conceptual model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) in resource discovery systems.

Speaker Biography: Barbara B. Tillett is chief of the Policy and Standards Division, Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Directorate, at the Library of Congress. She is an internationally known expert on bibliographic and authority standards.

Real Player is required to play the webcast.

Just the other day, a person asked how to define FRBR on the cataloging listserv AUTOCAT. It was interested to follow the lively discussion that ensued. There were some excellent points that arose and continue to be debated since the conversation is still taking place.

I found some interesting points to summarize:

1. FRBR will help with displaying records in the OPAC
2. FRBR will take cataloging and focus it on item cataloging instead of broader perspective of the entire catalog
3. FRBR’s user tasks either do or do not apply to users in our current information society
4. FRBR’s ability as a model to facilitate these user tasks
5. FRBR takes us away from a linear structure to a more complex one
6. Do you really catalog items in hand for the most part and is FRBR prepared for this

1. Because FRBR emphasizes relationships between entities, implementing this concept of relationships in the OPAC will provide the opportunity to great and display relationships within the online catalog.

2. FRBR tries to look beyond the internal uses of a bibliographic record. A user will take the information from the bibliographic record and use it in conjunction with other resources. FRBR forces one to look at what goes into bibliographic records and think of the information as going beyond the catalog to relate to other information on the Internet. For example, seeing an biography from Wikipedia of an author of a book being displayed as one of the library holdings brings together information about an information piece from different place on the Internet.

3. FRBR’s user tasks do not apply to users in our current information society. FRBR was published some 15 years ago (1998). It is only now that libraries are talking about FRBR, a conceptual model that has not been tested. Much has happened in 15 years. It is a lack of forthought to see that what users expect from information searching and browsing is the same now as it was 15 years ago. FRBR is outdated before it has even been applied in the world of libraries.

There is another spin on FRBR’s user tasks. In reducing user tasks to a total of 4 (find, identify, select, obtain), FRBR simplifies what the user really does with information. Also, there was one suggestion that the user tasks were linear where one task lead to another. This linear model does not represent what users can and sometimes already do when searching for information. The University of Minnesota, through a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, studied how academics search for information (http://www.lib.umn.edu/about/mellon/). One of their findings is represented by this impressive representational graph. Some think that FRBR user tasks only encompass a very small portion of the activities portrayed on this graph -leading to a warped view of how users manipulate information.

4. FRBR’s focus on relationships will help users get want they want from information. In being able to see, search, and browse serendipitously information, the user will form new conclusions.

5. FRBR takes us away from a linear structure to a more complex one. In linking data, there is a new level of complexity introduced. Data will no longer be estranged or isolated. It will become contextual and multi-textual.

6. FRBR is a conceptual model that relies on having an item in hand in order to distinguish it from other items. In this sense, it still keeps cataloging in the realm of the bibliographic record and not the larger scene of linked data or cloud computing for example.

These are but some of the ideas being discussed. As can be seen from my summaries, contrary arguments go head to head.

The important thing to remember is that this is a discussion. If you have time, join AUTOCAT and follow the threads!

Visualizations are an essential element to many fields including: geography, geology, chemistry and even math.  Think of how graphs are used in math to express equations; the graphs are visual representations that give meaning and added value to the equation. You can see where the equation is going, where it came from, what the equation means at various points; if you plot two equations on the same graph you can start to say something about how the equations relate to each other.  Okay, so you say, but graphs are just so…boring!  Well, look at the banner of this page:

you probably just thought it was a pretty picture right?  Well, no, actually it is a visualization of this equation:

Z_n+1 = Z_n²- 0.6 + 0.7i

Boring, linear information can be made beautiful and engaging all the while adding value and new levels of meaning. (Special thanks to my husband, David J.W. Simpson for creating the fractal visualization banner using MatLab.)

Libraries can learn quite a bit about visualizations and how to convey information from the sciences. Currently, I’ve found examples of libraries using visualizations for semantic relationships, browsing, and internal processes.  In the library context, visualizations for information retrieval are missing.  In general, even within browsing visualization tools there are not ways to do a directed search.

The context of relations and seeing where information is going, where it came from and what it means in various settings needs to be applied in information retrieval systems in particular.  Retrieval systems need to add value to the records, not just provide the records.  One of the best ways for retrieval systems to add value and context to information is through visualizations; make sense of the information through visualizing it.

Visualizations for information retrieval would be inherently tied to the metadata infrastructure.  Since most library catalogs are arranged in a hierarchy this poses a problem for creating non-hierarchical visualizations.  Perhaps the move towards FRBRized catalogs and establishment of relationships within the expression level will foster a more hospitable environment for visualizations within information retrieval.  If you need to catch up on FRBR and what it is, check out the FRBR site or the FRBR Blog.

Here is an example, albeit a somewhat comical and tongue-in-cheek example, I created of a possible information retrieval visualization based on a FRBRized catalog.

This example would facilitate both browsing and searching by combining search features (the cloud) with established relationships.