|
InfoPro Home > Professional Development > Monthly Column
“Got FRBR?”
By
Julie Webster-Matthews, LexisNexis Librarian Relations Consultant
Six months ago if someone had asked me ‘What’s FRBR?’, I would have guessed a cute, little, furry, stuffed animal or a new Martini. I really did not have a clue. Subsequently, I have asked that same question of a number of librarians and while many of them were not as clueless as I, it became apparent that an understanding of FRBR is still vague, particularly among those of us that do not work in technical services on a full time basis. The Internet, Podcasts, Webcasts, DVD’s and digitalization of resources presents challenges in making these information objects accessible and useable. FRBR offers a fresh perspective on the structure and relationships of bibliographic and authority records. It also provides a more precise vocabulary to help future cataloging rule makers and system designers in meeting user needs. 1 (Tillett) So, 1) what exactly is FRBR?; and 2) why should we care?
What is FRBR?
FRBR means Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. It represents a 1998 challenge by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) whether to identify works or items in cataloging. FRBR is an effort to restructure catalog databases to reflect the conceptual structure of information resources. FRBR is an entity-relationship model. It defines general classes of things (“entities”) that are deemed relevant in the specific context of a library [catalog], a row of characteristics (“attributes”) that pertain to these general classes, and the relationship that can exist between instances of these. Ibid
FRBR outlines four concepts: works, expression, manifestation and item upon which information objects are represented. In The Information of Organization, 2d, 2 (Taylor) those four concepts are described as:
The top level, “work” is the one that essentially exists only in the mind of the creator. It is an abstract entity with no single material object one can point to. Examples of “works” include, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and Mozart’s The Magic Flute.
The second level, “expression”, is where the work can actually be seen or heard or felt. There can be more than one expression of a single work. An expression is the realization of a work in alphanumeric, musical or choreographic notation; sound image; object; movement or a combination of such forms. Examples: For a newspaper, expressions might be a paper version, a Web version, or a translated version in Spanish. For Michelanglo’s David, expressions might be the original in its museum, copies of the sculpture elsewhere, photographs of the sculpture, or digital representations on the Web.
The third level, “manifestation” is a way of giving a name to any one of the formats in which one of the expressions of a work can be found. It is the situation in which exact contents are reproduced to look the same even though the format is different. In our newspaper example, suppose we are talking about the New York Times. A particular issue of the paper could have manifestations as print-on-paper format, as microfilm format, or as reproduction on CD-ROM.
The fourth level, “item”, is the one used to define a single exemplar of a manifestation and is normally the same as the manifestation, itself. Exemplars usually are identical of each other, but can be different in interesting ways. For example, there might be a damaged copy, a copy autographed by the author, or a copy bound by a library’s rebinding department.
FRBR is about bibliographic relationships. Barbara Tillett, offers a helpful explanation of FRBR in What is FRBR?. She writes,” Before FRBR our cataloging rules tended to be very unclear about using the words “work,” “edition,” or “item.” Even in everyday language, we tend to say a “book” when we may actually mean several things. For example, when we say “book” to describe a physical object that has paper pages and a binding and can sometimes be used to prop open a door or hold up a table leg, FRBR calls this an “item.” When we say “book” we also may mean a “publication” as when we go to a bookstore to purchase a book. We may know its ISBN but the particular copy does not matter as long as it’s in good condition and not missing pages. FRBR calls this a “manifestation.”
Why should we care?
The nature of the catalog is changing. FRBR possibly represents the biggest change cataloging has seen in the last century; and yet it is independent of any cataloging code. We’ve all heard the age old saying ‘if it’s not broke, why fix it?’ As much as AACR2 and the cataloging rules we’ve grown up with have served us well, the nature and vast quantity of information now available has changed drastically over the years. Technology has created, not only the need, but also the ability to implement new tools to represent information objects. At the very core of this evolution in representing information objects is metadata.
Metadata is data about data. It is data used in identifying, describing and locating networked electronic resources. Digitalization projects are on the rise. The need for consistency among information systems in an array of environments, i.e, libraries, museums, etc., globally, has become imperative. On any given day now, you can find job postings for metadata coordinators or metadata librarians. (Isn’t it funny how similar those job descriptions sound a lot like a cataloger?) When considering precision and recall, collections of DVD’s, websites, images, CD’s, drawings, and artifacts present new challenges for indexers. Although, libraries have created a metadata standard in their MARC record formats, that serve libraries well, in the larger information community outside the library, the MARC standard is difficult to use. Dr. Brad Eden, University of California, Santa Barbara, writes, “Since the advent of the Internet, the library catalog has become a little-used resource, almost a bygone era when the library held reign as the information repository of recorded world knowledge”. 3
FRBR proposes a national-level bibliographic record of all types of objects, and a set of user tasks that have been adopted as key to the design and assessment of bibliographic tools such as library catalogs and information-organization tools.Ibid FRBR as been identified as a data model that holds great potential for improving access to library resources. However, people find FRBR concepts difficult to understand. An understanding of the concepts of a work, expression and manifestation remains elusive. If you are a visual learner, as I am, I encourage you take a look at the “Family of Works” graphic from What is FRBR? A Conceptual Model for the Bibliographic Universe by Dr. Barbara Tillett of the Library of Congress. This pamphlet outlines, in a pictorial format, the relationships the FRBR model proposes.
So there you have it…FRBR is not a Martini! It is the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. This article is an extremely oversimplified explanation of FRBR; and the topic lends itself to great discussion and debate. Much has been written about the impact and implications of this model. My objective was to define for some and, clarify for others what FRBR is about. For those of us that are not cataloging oficionados, I hope that FRBR will no longer sound like a something you’d like to cuddle. For those of you that dwell in the land of technical services, I have provided some additional resources that you may find useful in staying abreast of the developments and dialog surrounding FRBR. If you think this is challenging, wait until you meet FRBR’s cousins, FRAR, FROR, FRANAR AND FRSAR!
Bibliography:
“The Challenges of Change”. By: Miksa, Shawne D. Library Resources & Technical Services, Jan. 2007, Vol. 51, Issue 1, p51-68, 18p.
The FRBR Blog http://www.frbr.org/. This blog is maintained by William Denton and has become the “official” conduit of information related to FRBR.
“FRBR’s Impact on Current Standards”. By Eden, Brad. Library Technology Reports, Nov/Dec 2006, Vol. 42, Issue 6, p21-23, 3p.
“FRBRization: A Method of Turning Online Public Finding Lists into Online Catalogs”, by Martha M. Yee, “ Information Technology and Libraries 24, no. 3 (2005), http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/715
Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records: Hype or Cure All?, Patrick Leboeuf, ed., (Binghampton: Haworth Press, 2005).
IFLA’s FRBR Discussion Group
http://infoserv.inis.fr/wwsympa.fcgi/info/frbr
“Lipstick on a Pig”. By Roy Tennant, libraryjournal.com, April 15, 2005. http://libraryjournal.com/article/CA516027.html.
www.oclc.org/research/projects/frbr/default.htm
A compilation of OCLC Research projects incorporating FRBR, including Curiouser, FictionFinder, xISBN, FRBR algorithm and Humphry Clinker record FRBRization.
“Understanding FRBR as a Conceptual Model: FRBR AND THE Bibliographic Universe”. By: Carlyle, Allyson. Library Resources & Technical Services, Oct. 2006, Vol. 50 Issue 4, p264-273, 10p
University of California Libraries’ Bibliographic Services Task Force (BSTF). Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California, BSTF Final Report (California: University of California Libraries, December 2005). http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sozopg/BSTF/Final.pdf
1 What is FRBR? A Conceptual Model of the Bibliographic Universe, www.loc.gov/cds/FRBR.html, Barbara Tillett
2 Organization of Information, 2d, Arlene Taylor, 2004.
3 “Preface”. By: Eden, Brad. Library Technology Reports 42:6 (Nov.-Dec. 2006) p. 5(4)
Back to Top >> |
