Multiple Interpretations: Implications of FRBR as a Boundary Object
Ingbert Floyd
ifloyd2@illinois.edu
Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
FRBR
Work
FRBRoo
FRBR is a “conceptual model
of the bibliographic universe”
Monograph Catalogers
Serials Catalogers
Expression
Reference Librarians
FRBR
Manifestation
LIS Researchers
FRBR
Group 1 Entities
Item
•Work: “a distinct intellectual or artistic creation”
•Expression: “the intellectual or artistic realization of a work
in the form of alphanumeric, musical, or choreographic
notation...” (e.g., a particular text)
•Manifestation: “the physical embodiment of an expression”
(e.g., a particular edition)
•Item: “a single exemplar of a manifestation” (a copy)
Appropriate attributes are also assigned: a work might have a
subject, an expression a language, a manifestation a typeface,
an item a condition.
FRBR: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (IFLA 1998).
FRBR is the declared “foundation” for the next version of the Anglo-American
Cataloging Rules: Resource Description and Access, and is increasingly
influential in content management and cultural ontologies.
FRBR Interpretation
•FRBR’s intent “… was to produce a framework that would
provide a clear, precisely stated, and commonly shared
understanding of what it is that the bibliographic record aims
to provide information about” (IFLA 1998).
•A close reading of LIS literature surrounding FRBR
indicates that different members of the community have
different interpretations of the Group 1 Entities.
•E.g.: Yee 1998; Renear, Phillippe, Lawton & Dubin 2003.
•FRBR itself states: “The concept of what constitutes a work
[…] may in fact be viewed differently from one culture to
another.” (IFLA 1998)
•A problem if different local institutions each try to develop
their own cataloging software with the intent to produce data
export formats that are harvestable and interoperable.
•Thus, it seems FRBR can function as a boundary object.
•Boundary objects are an analytic construct used to explain
how members of different communities with multiple
perspectives can coordinate activities around common objects
without ceding their respective understandings of the objects.
Museum Community
Digital Preservation Librarians
Compare FRBRoo (CIDOC CRM 2008) with FRBR (IFLA 1998)
representations of portions of the bibliographic universe. Notice how
the representations have changed over time. The FRBRoo
representation does not include manifestations or items.
Implications & Questions
Archivists
FRBR as a boundary object. A selection of different communities of practice (CoPs) who likely
apply different technological frames to their understanding of FRBR, and have different
conceptions of how to implement FRBR “properly”. The CoPs themselves are not homogeneous
either, of course. Within each CoP there exist sub-communities whose technological frames and
conceptualizations of FRBR vary as well.
Jones
•Work is a systems-level construct,
it becomes important only when
actualized by being implemented
in cataloging rules.
•How will the dynamic nature of
serial publications will have to be
twisted to fit into FRBR-based
cataloging rules?
•the amount of extra work for the
cataloger as a primary criterion for
the evaluation of FRBR as a model
•Tech. frame is how cataloging
practice as mediated by cataloging
technology provides functionality
for both the user and the cataloger.
Jones 2005
Taniguchi 2002, 2004
Conceptual Model
Conceptual Model
Cataloging Rules
Cataloging Rules
Cataloging Practice
Cataloging Practice
A rhetorical oversimplification of
the difference between Jones
(2005) & Taniguchi (2002; 2004)
demonstrating different
approaches.
•FRBR will be subject to continuing negotiations surrounding
their structure, interpretation, and organization
•Began: Cutter & Lubetzky; Compare: FRBRoo & FRBR
•“FRBR-compliant” cataloging systems need flexible
information architectures that can support changes in
cataloging practices, not just current practice.
•FLOSS, local control, iterative development
•FRBR translates between communities (e.g. item). Always
•Most important questions are:
successfully? Or are some interp. too far apart to translate?
1. how are concepts in the
•More refined ontologies: are expressions, manifestations,
conceptual model translated
into cataloging rules/practices and items roles other objects play? (Renear & Dubin 2007)
2. what is the primary construct of •Entities such as “files” can be socially established as items
because they fulfill the role requirements of an item.
the conceptual model which
cataloging rules & activity will •Need multiple ontologies: related with clear translations
between them, but optimized for different purposes.
be constructed around.
•The conceptual model constructs •Ideal form models vs. implementable form models.
are the important things to focus
References & Acknowledgements
on: if correct, then the translation
to rules should be straightforward 1. Bowker, G., & Star , S.L. (2000). Sorting things out: classification and its
consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
•Tech. frame is the mechanism for 2. Jones, E. (2005). The FRBR Model as Applied to Continuing Resources. Library
Resources & Technical Services, 49(4), 227-242.
translating the conceptual model
3. Renear, A., Dubin, D. (2007). Three of the Four FRBR Group 1 Entity Types are Roles
into cataloging rules and practices. not Types. ASIS&T, Proceedings of the Annual Conference.
Taniguchi
Work: can conceptualize it
many different ways, but if
you get it right, cataloging
rules follow if use
proper translation
mechanism.
Work: a systems level
construct that is defined
by cataloging pragmatics
“Work”
4. Renear, A. H., Phillippe, C., Lawton, P., & Dubin, D., (2003). An XML Document
Corresponds to Which FRBR Group 1 Entity? In B. T Usdin and S. R. Newcomb (Eds.),
Proceedings of Extreme Markup Languages 2003 Montreal, Canada, August.
5. Taniguchi, S. (2004). Design of cataloging rules using conceptual modeling of
cataloging process. JASIST, 55(6), 498-512.
6. Taniguchi, S. (2002). A conceptual model giving primacy to expression-level
bibliographic entity in cataloging. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 363-382.
7. Yee, M. M. (1998). What is a work? In J. Weihs (Ed.), Proceedings of the International
Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, 1997 (pp. 62-104).
Chicago: American Library Association.
Special thanks for stimulating discussions to Allen Renear, David Dubin, Michael Twidale,
Thomas Dousa, and Karen Wickett.