1

MARC and FRBRMatch or mismatch?

Trond Aalberg

Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),

Department of Computer and Information Science

2

Content

• Background

• MARC formats and FRBR

• Interpreting MARC records in the context of FRBR

• Some examples (walk-through)

• FRBR and large scale integrated services

• Conclusions?

3

Background

• Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Dept. of Computer and Information Science

– Digital Libraries and Information Management as core research topics– Libraries, museums and archives as a domain of interest and cooperation

• FRBR – Experimental FRBRization of the Norwegian BIBSYS database – joint

project with BIBSYS, NTNU and The National Library of Norway– Working Group on FRBR-CRM harmonization: creating an object-oriented

ontology that merges the FRBR concepts with the CIDOC CRM ontology– On our agenda: FRBR in European Digital Library research and

development projects

4

The dual nature ofMARC formats

• A MARC format is an exchange format

• Also serves as the logical data model of the bibliographic data

• Defines the structure and semantics of the bibliographic information you create and store

• May be stored in different ways, but the this is usuallya storage level implementation based on the req. of the logical data model (with exceptions)

5

MARC formats

• Formats based on the ISO 2709 standard for information exchange

• MARC 21– Trend in changing from national formats to MARC 21 as exchange format

• UNIMARC– Different from MARC 21, basically in the use of tag numbers, but in other

features as well– In some ways more “modern”

• And many others– Many national or vendor-specific formats have been developed in parallel with

USMARC and are more or less comparable to the current MARC 21 format– Often a level of adaptation even when using MARC 21 or UNIMARC – at least in

terms of using all the features of the format

6

IFLA’s Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records - FRBR

• Aims to establish a precisely stated and commonly shared understanding of what it is that the bibliographic record should provide information about.

• Defined by the use of an entity-relationship model

• FRBR is a conceptual model – Not a specific metadata schema or data model – On the other hand, the conceptual model you use should be

the fundament for the the logical data model

• A lot of experiments on using FRBR so far, but no clear agenda for realizing the model in library systems

Work

Manifestation

Expression

Item

is embodied in

is exemplified by

is realized through

7

FRBR and MARC?

• Why is this interesting?– Bibliographic catalogues are based on MARC formats– Any major change in the world of bibliographic information has

to consider this legacy information– MARC may be “old-fashioned” but will be around for many more years

• Important questions:– Are the existing MARC formats already able to express FRBR?– What is needed to make the FRBR model more explicit in MARC records?– How can we improve the formats?

• An evolutionary approach for realizing FRBR is more likely to succeed than a revolutionary one

8

The BIBSYS FRBR project

• An experimental FRBRization of the Norwegian BIBSYS database

• App. 4.000.000 records in the BIBSYS-MARC format

• Conversion into records with a more explicit representation of the FRBR model

– XML record for each entity instance found– With explicit and typed relationships in between– Normalized - one record for each entity, with links between

• Prototype search system – mainly for evaluating the conversion and experimenting with presentation and navigation

• Specific for this project: – we tried to cover all possible occurrence of group 1 and group 2 entities– main entries, added entries, subject entries, series, all kinds of “part-of”

structures

9

BIBSYS FRBRized prototype

10

What we learned (i)

• Mapping tables from MARC to FRBR is only a start– Rules are needed for expressing when an entity and/or relationships occurs

• Entities that can be “anchored” to specific data fields can easily be identified

– 100, 600, 700 entries are persons– 240, 130 indicates the work

• Entities without a one-to-one relationship between data field and entity occurrence are difficult

• Some relationships are often implicit in the use of fields – others are not

– 600 person is the subject of a 240 work– For added entry persons in 700 we are additional information such as

indicators and relator codes

11

What we learned (ii)

• Advanced processing is often needed– Text-processing often needed to homogenize values– Data must be corrected and sometimes restructured

• Inconsistencies become more visible– Errors that nobody ever have noticed before are suddenly eye-catchers

• Requires data of high quality– Missing or erroneous data

• Hugh number or rules are needed– Cataloguing rules are highly intricate, decoding records too– Have to cover current rules and current format

• And historic versions if not converted– Data is sometimes different from what it should be according to the format

• To every rule for interpreting a record there is always an exception

12

The bibliographic record

• A bibliographic record is a self-contained unit of information– A unit of information that can be exchanged and reused by others– Usually no dependencies to other records

• Includes the information that is needed to – Find, identify, select, obtain (FRBR user tasks) manifestations

• In the context of FRBR the bibliographic record is basically a manifestation surrogate– But contains information that describes many aspects of a publication

(including other FRBR entities)– Are MARC formats able to represent FRBR?

13

A simple example

• A single person that has published a single bookPerson (1) has created Work (1) is realized through Expression (1) is embodied in Manifestation (1) is exemplified by Item (1+)

• A MARC record is perfectly able to capture this scenario and many existing records already express only this simple scenario

WP E

MI

14

• Many occurrences of group 2 entities

But what about the more advanced cases?

W

P

E

M

PP

P

PP

15

• Many works in one publication

But what about the more advanced cases?

W

P

E

M

E E

W

P

W

P

16

• Many works and many group 2 entities

But what about the more advanced cases?

W

P

E

M

E E

W

P

W

PP

P

P P

P

17

• Multivolume publications where each volume has parts

But what about the more advanced cases?

W

P

E

M

E E

W

P

W

PP

P

P

P

MM

18

Requirements for FRBR in bibliographic information

• Two fundamental requirements:– Entities must have well-defined identities– By the use of descriptive information or by the use of identifiers

• Relationships must be well-defined– By semantics: you have be able to interpret the precise

meaning of the relationship– By targets: you have to be able to identify the “to” and “from”

entities

• Properties are important but less significant if the first two requirements are met– Except the ones that are needed for descriptive identification

19

Identifying works and expressions

• Works– The notion of a work is inherent in any intellectual contribution– As a general rule any manifestation will embody at least one

expression that is a realization of a work– Properties req. to identify a work:

• Creator(s), title, date and form (and sometimes other prop.)

• Expressions– Any manifestation will embody at least one expression– An expression is always a realization of only one work– If there is a work identified there is always an expression– Properties req. to identify an expression

• The work, language, form, and more (and sometimes other prop.)

20

Multiple expressions and manifestations of the same work• Different publications may

contain the same “work” in different expressions

• The problem is already addressed (but not completely solved)

• Uniform titles are already used to identify “works” that appear under different titles

• Various codes and subfields are used to describe the expression level characteristics

21

Uniform titles

• Do all records have a uniform title entry? - NO

• Experience from the Norwegian BIBSYS database– 95% of records with title statement (245) as the only title– Number is inaccurate because of the use of record linking for multi-

volume publications

• If not: – Title statement can be used to identify work

• In many cases the title statement can be used for work title, but is not always a good source for work identification

22

Examples• The same work and the same title in 245

• The same work but different titles

100 $a Burgess, Anthony, $d 1917-1993. 245 $a Ernest Hemingway and his world / $c Anthony Burgess. 260 $a [London] : $b Thames and Hudson, $c c1978. 300 $a 128 p. : $b ill. ; $c 24 cm. 100 $a Burgess, Anthony, $d 1917-1993.

245 $a Ernest Hemingway / $c Anthony Burgess. 260 $a New York : $b Thames and Hudson, $c 1999. 300 $a 128 p. : $b ill. ; $c 24 cm.

100 $a Ballard, J. G., $d 1930- 245 $a Cocaine nights / $c J.G. Ballard. 260 $a London : $b Flamingo, $c 1996. 300 $a 328 p. ; $c 23 cm.

100 $a Ballard, J. G., $d 1930- 245 $a Cocaine nights / $c J.G. Ballard. 250 $a 1st Counterpoint ed. 260 $a Washington, D.C. : $b Counterpoint, $c 1998. 300 $a 328 p. ; $c 23 cm.

23

Identifying works based on 245 title

• May result in a large number of errors

• Lack of uniform title when title statement is significantly different from original title – such as translations

• Different title statements on different editions

• Erroneous or inconsistent representation of title statement

24

Added entries

• Is used for adding more access points not provided by other fields

• Is used to deal with multiple names and titles associated to an item

• Or to add information about constituent parts – analytical entries

• MARC 21: 7XX– A small number of fields used for a number of purposes, meaning and

structure is managed by the use of indicators + relator codes and/or terms

• UNIMARC: Does not use the concept of added entries but has a broad range of fields for the same purpose, including linking fields for analytical entries

25

Additional persons (or corporate bodies)

W

P

E

M

I

P

P

P

• Added entries can be used to associate more persons with the entities

– Added entry fields in MARC21 (7XX)– 701, 702 fields in UNIMARC

• Relator codes are needed to express what kind of entity the person is associated to

– And the semantics of the relationship

• The applicability of this is depending on how ambiguous the relator codes are

• Without relator code the added entry is without meaning and it is impossible to know the kind and target of the relationship

• Descriptions may exist but are hard to interpret automatically

26

Author example

100 $a Sjowall, Maj, $d 1935- 245 $a Brandbilen som forsvann. $b Roman om ett brott. $c [Av] Maj Sjowall och Per Wahloo. 260 $a Stockholm, $b Norstedt, $c 1969. 300 $a 249, (1) p. $c 23 cm. 700 $a Wahloo, Per, $d 1926-1975. $e joint author.

100 $a Sjowall, Maj, $d 1935- 240 $a Brandbilen som forsvann. $l Á donsku 245 $a Brandbilen som forsvandt / $c Maj Sjowall og Per Wahloo ; på dansk ved Grete Juel Jørgensen. 260 $a [S.l.] : $b Superpocket, $c 2002. 300 $a 275 s. 440 $a Roman om en forbrydelse ; $v 5 700 $a Wahloo, Per, $d 1926-1975 700 $a Jørgensen, Grete Juel

Two authors

Three authors?

27

Managing complex information

• Sometimes there is a need to organize the fields by more than tags and indicators

• MARC 21 : $8 - FIELD LINK AND SEQUENCE NUMBER

• E.g. associating added entry fields that pertain to the same constituent item

700 1_$82\c$84\c$aDi Giuseppe, Enrico,$d1938-$4prf 700 12$81\c$aSiegmeister, Elie$d1909-$tFrom my window;$oarr. 700 12$82\c$aMozart, Wolfgang Amadeus,$d1756-1791.$tDon Giovanni$pMio tesoro. 700 12$83\c$aFlotow, Friedrich von,$d1812-1883.$tMartha.$pAch! So fromm, ach! so traut.$lItalian 700 12$84\c$aPuccini, Giacomo,$d1858-1924.$tTurandot.$pNessun dorma. 700 12$85\c$aRespighi, Ottorino$d1879-1936.$tPini di Roma. 740 $aUna casa di bambola$wcasa di bambola

740 $aSpettri740 $aL'anitra selvatica$w'anitra selvatica740 $aEt dukkehjem$wdukkehjem740 $aGengangere740 $aVildandenReadable and

searchable, but no structure

28

Works and persons as subject entries

• MARC 21– 600/610/611 fields for

person/corporate/meeting names– 630 for uniform titles

• UNIMARC– 600 Personal Name Used as Subject– 601 Corporate Body Name Used as Subject– 602 Family Name Used as Subject– 604 Name and Title Used as Subject– 605 Title Used as Subject

• Subjects are distinct entries in a record

• In FRBR subject relationships are always from works

subject

W

P

E

M

W

P

P

29

Example

100 $a Beethoven, Ludwig van, $d 1770-1827. 240 $a Selections 245 $a Beethoven for dummies $h [sound recording]. 260 $a New York : $b EMI, $c p1996. 300 $a 1 sound disc : $b digital, stereo. ; $c 4 3/4 in. 440 $a Classics for dummies 500 $a The 1st and 3rd works for orchestra; the 2nd for violin and orchestra; the 4th for piano; the 5th for piano and orchestra; the 6th for SATB solos, SATB chorus, and orchestra. 546 $a The 6th work sung in German. 600 $a Beethoven, Ludwig van, $d 1770-1827.

The subject entry is correct, but does the name entry and uniform title reflect creator and work?

30

Aggregations

• Whole/part relationships may exist between all group 1 entities

• Can be of different types depending of the role of the part in the overall composition

• A range of techniques in use to express different types of “something being part of something”– Series – Analytical entries– Record Linking– Linking entry fields– Part-names in title fields

31

Series• Some series are works

100 1_ $a Tolkien, J. R. R. $q (John Ronald Reuel), $d 1892-1973. 245 14 $a The two towers / $c J.R.R. Tolkien ; illustrated by Alan Lee. 490 1_ $a 490 1_ $a The lord of the rings ; $v pt. 2 800 1_ $a Tolkien, J. R. R. $q (John Ronald Reuel), $d 1892-1973. $t Lord of the rings (2002) ; $v pt. 2.

100 1_ $a Tolkien, J. R. R. $q (John Ronald Reuel), $d 1892-1973. 245 14 $a The lord of the rings / $c by J.R.R. Tolkien. 250 __ $a [50th anniversary 1 vol. ed.] 260 __ $a Boston : $b Houghton Mifflin, $c [2005]

240 10 $a Lord of the rings 245 10 $a Hringadróttinssaga / $c eftir J.R.R. Tolkien ;

Þorsteinn Thorarensen íslenskaði ; ljóðaþýðingar Geir Kristjánsson.

The title in the series entry title in one record, may be the main entry work in another record

• But not all series entries are relevantly treated on the work level

800 1_ $a Bach, Johann Christian, $d 1735-1782. $t Works. $f 1984 ; $v v. 7.

32

Analytical entries

• Is solved differently by different agencies (or format)

• Added entries or by listing in notes

100 1 $a Tolkien, J. R. R. $q (John Ronald Reuel), $d 1892-1973 245 14 $a The lord of the rings ; $b The fellowship of the ring ; The two towers ; The return of the king / $c by J.R.R. Tolkien 740 4 $a The fellowship of the ring 740 4 $a The two towers 740 4 $a The return of the king

100 1_ $a Tolkien, J. R. R. $q (John Ronald Reuel), $d 1892-1973. 245 14 $a The lord of the rings / $c by J.R.R. Tolkien. 505 0_ $a The fellowship of the ring ---The two towers ---The return of the king.

Both solutions can be machine-interpreted, but the use of formatted notes adds a new level of complexity

33

Record linking(in BIBSYS MARCand other formats)

*001900460628*008 pv eng*100 $aTolkien, J.R.R.*245 $aThe lord of the rings$cby J. R. R. Tolkien$wlord of the rings*260 $aNew York$bAce Books$c[1965?]*300 $a3 b.

*001900460660*008 pv*245 $aThe return of the kings$wreturn of the kings*260 $c[1965?]$w1965*300 $a444 s.*491 $n900460628$q3$v3

*001900460652*008 pv*245 $aThe two towers$wtwo towers*260 $c[1965?]*300 $a381 s.*491 $n900460628$q2$v2

The link enables users tonavigate between subordinateand parent records

Appropriate for whole/part relationships at themanifestation level, but not between other entities

Experience from BIBSYS: App. 25% of records are linked

34

Linking entry fields

• Each linking entry field in a record will contain subfields that is used to identify the item to which the link is being made

• Different field tags represents different link semantics

• Two techniques for UNIMARC linking entry fields :– Embedded fields (allows for complex entries)– Standard subfields (easier to implement and more interoperable with other MARC

formats)

• Still a question about what entities the link is between– The work, expression or manifestation?– For some fields the anchors are ambiguous, for others not

• The fields embedded in UNIMARC embedded links may be meaningful– Uniform titles may indicate link to a work (500 + 7XX)– Title proper may indicate link to the manifestation (200 + 7XX)

35

Part-names in title fields

• The use of part names and part numbers in title fields indicates the presence of an aggregate

• Such as the “parts” of the Bible

• Or musical works

130 0_ $a Bible. $p N.T. $l Scots. 245 10 $a The New Testament in Scots / $c translated by William Laughton Lorimer.

130 0_ $a Bible. $p N.T. $p Matthew. $l Mountain Arapesh. $f 2000. 245 10 $a Enyudok iruhin ananin yopinyi barain Matyu nenyem iri. 260 __ $a [Papua New Guinea : $b S.I.L.], $c 2000.

36

Authority data

• The nature of a catalogue is inherently “not normalized” in the database sense

• Descriptions of the same person (or other entity) may be found in multiple records

• Not a problem if the main purpose is to support indexing and searching: high tolerance for inconsistencies and errors

• A problem if the main purpose is structuring, grouping, linking, navigating

• Is already addressed by the well-established use of authority data, but can be improved in most catalogues

37

Rich descriptions?

• In the metadata discussions of the late 90ties– MARC formats were considered to be the richest metadata formats in terms

of expressing detailed and structured bibliographic information– But is highly domain-specific and oriented towards presenting the

bibliographic information and the indexing of access-points

• ISO 2709 has limitations– Generic information structure– Advanced in terms of the number of different fields that can be defined, but

simple in terms of complex structures (limited number of levels)

• Is not as flexible and generic as XML and does not have the same software support

• But is surprisingly expressive when used to its full extent

38

What is a work and what is an expression

• We do not yet have a well developed understanding of the nature of works and expressions

• Should expect many years of discussions and clarification– Definitions must be allowed to evolve and mature

– Into something that easily can be applied

• On the pragmatic side:– It is possible to select what is important for the users

39

FRBR across catalogues

• Towards large scale integrated service

• Example applications: WorldCat, TEL, Google Book Search, ….

• Requires:– A common model of information or tools that support model interoperability– The ability to identify equivalent entities on all levels

• Example problems:– 240 $a Symphonies, $n no. 5, op. 67, $r C minor. $p Allegro con brio. $k

Selections; $o arr. – 240 $a Sinfoniat $b Beethoven $e nro 5 $j op67 $r c-molli $u 0005 $v 0067 – 240 $a Symfoni $n nr 5 $n op. 67 $r c-moll, "Ödessymfonin“

• Format differences, or differences in the use of the same format

40

Human readable vs.machine readable

• The human mind is a magnificent invention

• Computers are magnificent too, but very far from being able to mimic human intelligence

• Machine readable information is the requirement of the future

• Requires data granularity: data structures for complex values, not text-based structures

• Leave processing and presentation to the machines, but make sure that they can understand the information!

41

User tasks

• Find, identify, select and obtain

• General user tasks, but what about the techniques?

• What is the functionality that users expect– Do they know?– Do we know?

• Navigation possibilities and organized search results are key requirements

• Links and advanced display of complex lists are key implementation techniques

42

Concluding remarks

• FRBR may already be in the records

• But is MARC the right solution for the future?

• If we consider legacy information and all the investments in MARC : yes

• If independently recommending it : no– XML-based would be better than ISO 2709

• Separate presentation from data and refine the data model for your FRBR needs

• On the other hand: – Advanced FRBR structures only apply to a small part of a catalogue