‘Convergence is the Goal’:Activity Reportof the IFLA FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonization Group

Patrick Le BœufFRBR in 21st century catalogues:an invitational workshopDublin, Ohio, May 2-4, 2005

2

FRBR/CRM Harmonization Group

formed 2003gathers representatives for & corresponding

members of: the IFLA FRBR Review Group the CRM Special Interest Group (CRM-SIG)

chaired by Martin Doerr, Institute of Computer Science of the FOundation for Research & Technology Hellas – ICS-FORTH (assisted by Patrick Le Bœuf)

3

Persons involved:

For the FRBR “community”:

Trond Aalberg Ketil Albertsen Allyson Carlyle Beth Dulabahn Tom Delsey Stefan Gradmann Mauro Guerrini Patrick Le Bœuf Dan Matei Glenn Patton Gerhard Riesthuis Richard Smiraglia Barbara Tillett Maja Žumer

For the CRM “community”:

Gerhard Budin Nicholas Crofts Martin Doerr (chair) Tony Gill Dolores Iorizzo Stephen Stead Matthew Stiff Manfred Thaller Günter Waibel

4

Why harmonize FRBR & CRM?

They represent similar efforts in close fields (cultural heritage)

It is in line with the mainstream of “ALM convergence”

It will facilitate mediation systems between library catalogs & museum inventories

It will facilitate reuse of tools designed for CRM (e.g., RDF Schema expression of CRM)

It will facilitate cross-domain projects (e.g., the SCULPTEUR/PICTEUR Project)

5

Comparative chartFRBR

E-R

focuses on “multiple” objects (ideally “identical” copies of publications)

scalable and incomplete: FRBR for descriptive aspects, FRAR for authorities,…

“static”, “non-event-aware” model

few entities, many attributes

CRM OO

focuses on “unique” objects (that can be grouped by “type”, e.g. specimen/species)

integrated: seamless coverage of descriptive aspects & authorities

“dynamic”, “event-aware” model

no “attribute” as such, only relationships ( many classes)

6

What is CIDOC CRM?

Developed from 1996 on by ICOM CIDOC (International Council of Museums – International Committee for Documentation)

Maintained by CRM-SIGAbout to be validated as ISO 21127Builds upon the CIDOC Information CategoriesCovers fine arts, archaeology, natural history…

7

Role of CRM: Dig Meaning Out of “Flat” Statements

INV4884Artist: Théodore GéricaultDate: 1818-1819

Something

Author

Date

has an

and a

8

Something

ObjectIdentifier

ProductionEvent

Actor

ActorAppellation

Time-Span

Time Primitive(date range)

“INV4884”

“Théodore Géricault”

1818-1819

known

as

was carried

out by

know

n

as

lasted for a given

can be

approximated

with reference to

was

produced

by

9

Event-Centered Structure of CRM

Event

What happened?

Involving whom?

Involving what?

When? Where?

Actor

ActorAppellation

PhysicalStuff

Appellation

Time-Span

TimePrimitive

Place

PlaceAppellation

ConceptualObject

Of what

?Type

10

Methodology (1) 3 meetings so far:

Meeting #1: 2003, Nov. 12-14• Getting to know each other: talks and debates:

• Collection vs. Sets vs. Multipart Objects

• Richard Smiraglia on Work notion

• Allyson Carlyle on Expression notion

• Manfred Thaller on Manuscripts

• Tom Delsey on Subjects

• … Meeting #2: 2004, March 22-25

• Work & Expression Attributes Meeting #3: 2005, Feb. 14-16

• Manifestation & Item Attributes

Detailed reports have not been made publicly available

11

Methodology (2)

Examine each Attribute: What does it mean? Is there any implicit assumption about its meaning? How do non-librarians understand its definition? How to express the same meaning in a CRM-like

structure?

What’s on a librarian’s mind? Cataloging processes sometimes important to model too

12

Methodology (3)

Too many Attributes? Split the entity!

A given Attribute actually refers to an Event? Make the Event explicit!

How do catalogers acquire knowledge about merely “abstract” entities? Through concrete entities that are deemed to be representative for abstract entities

13

Some Principles

The “idea” of “the” Work is only known through a representative Expression

– i.e., my idea of Hamlet = it is an English text; a Japanese version = an Expression too, but not “representative” of what the Work is

An Expression is only grasped through a representative Manifestation

– i.e., an edition of Hamlet titled “Something rotten in Denmark” but otherwise with correct text = a Manifestation, but not deemed “representative” as to its title

It is the Bibliographic Agency (= the cataloger) who determines what is “representative” and what is not

14

The old debate again!

“New Work, or just another Expression?”

A cataloger says: “I think of Hamlet as a Work that is best represented by an Expression of ‘Text’ type”

If something called Hamlet is of another type than that constraining super-type (e.g., a movie), then it is another Work

BibliographicAgency

RepresentativeAssignment

Work Expression

Type

performed

has representativeexpression

assigned

assigned to

has type

has constraining super-type

15

Same Constraining Super-Type

Other Constraining Super-Type

16

Three basic distinctions that were absent from E-R FRBR

Work

is a

ComplexWork

SerialWork

Self-ContainedExpression

is a

is a

is expressed in

= has distinct “parts”, either in its conception (e.g., a trilogy), or over time (revisions, translations…)

17

Expression

is a

FragmentExpression

Self-ContainedExpression

is a

shows something conceived as a whole by its creator

not intended as a whole by its creator

is fragment ofis part of

18

InformationCarrier

is a

ManifestationSingleton

ManifestationProduct Type

is a

e.g., a publication(abstract notion)

e.g., a manuscript(physical object)

Type = 2 classes from CRM

is a

Items

19

The nature of… a title-page

The info found on title-pages does not belong to the embodied Expression

It is a peculiar kind of Expression – created by the publisher; we called it: “Publication Expression”

Expression

(instance: author’s text)

PublicationExpression

ManifestationProduct Type

comprises carriers of

(proper)Title

has publisher content

(instance: title-page+TOC+ publisher’s logo…)

is composed of

20

What next?Group 2, Group 3, FRAR attributesFRBR & FRAR relationshipsPolish the overall picture (some attributes

were postponed, some new concepts need clarification)

Check the robustnessDraft deliverables: scope notes and examples

for each class & property, tutorials, explanatory documents…

= 2 years of work??

21

Pros & Cons

Pros:Goal = only 1 conceptual model for museums & libraries unified field

OO formalism more appropriate for Semantic Web activities

Opens ways to revolutionary OPACs

Cons: Sounds too

complicated for catalogers?

Appeals more to information & computer scientists than to librarians?

Do we need a “unified field” at all?

22

By way of conclusion

2007 = “Annus Mirabilis”: International Cataloguing Principles AACR3 and hopefully OO-FRBR??

23

Thanks for your patience!

Special thanks to Martin Doerr and Anila Angjeli for re-reading this presentation and help me correct it