Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[James Weinheimer]

On 12/7/2013 6:24 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
snip
How bibliographic record exchange would work when full manifestation 
records no longer exist, and collections have differing manifestations 
of works, I've not seen discussed.

/snip

Yes, I have not seen this issue discussed either. Just as important, 
especially in today's rather crazy environment is: who will *own* the 
work/expression information? If not made clear, a library could lose all 
of its headings! and be left only with the manifestation (or ISBD 
areas). Naturally, that would be a complete disaster for any library.


It would be highly irresponsible for a library to assume that such vital 
information would forever be in the public domain. That must be ensured 
legally by all means available.

--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
First Thus http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
Cooperative Cataloging Rules 
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Cataloging Matters Podcasts 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[J. McRee Elrod]

James said:

FRBR proposes to take out data that is now in the manifestation
record and put certain parts of it into a work instance, while
other data will go into an expression instance.

Bibframe has work and instance  data, no expression category.  What
are different expressions in FRBR/WEMI are different (linked) works in
Bibframe.  There is inconsistency in our present and proposed
standards in terms of agreement with FRBR.

So why did they want to do that? Designers of relational databases
want to make their databases as efficient as they can, and one way to
do that is by eliminating as much duplication as possible.

Reducing redundancy was Lubetski's aim, and it came back to cause us
difficulty when the order of elements changed.  The element with
particular data might no longer precede the element lacking it.
e.g., a 110 became a 710, with no 245/$c and 260$b saying The
Office.  SLC made a lot of money putting that missing data in.

We have also discovered the hard way that redundancy is good, and not
expensive with dropping computer storage costs.  We have lost some
programs written by son Mark (such as the one which printed KWIC
indexes), with the loss of computers.  We should have had back up.  
The crash of a system on which we depend for linked data could happen.  
Even government run websites can have their problems, particularly
with a large number of attempted users .-{)} .

How bibliographic record exchange would work when full manifestation
records no longer exist, and collections have differing manifestations
of works, I've not seen discussed. 
  

   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[J. McRee Elrod]

James said:

The structure of the card catalog allowed people to do the FRBR user 
tasks (where--for those who understood--people really and truly could 
find/identify/select/obtain works/expressions/manifestation/items by 
their authors/titles/subjects (or at least they could if the catalogers 
had done their jobs correctly).

I am second to none in deploring the loss of some features of the card
catalogue.  But in addition to cataloguers doing their job, those
cards had to be filed.  At the end of the card catalogue era, this was
becoming increasingly difficult in larger academic institutions.  Some
student filers were dumping cards rather that filing them.  Escaping
card filing was a major improvement provided by OPACs, right up there
with keyword searching.  In Canada, micro or print catalgues produced
by Utlas ending filing for many libraries prior to OPACs.

I agree with your basic position on FRBR.  If I want an English
translation of a work, why would I want to know about the original and
other translations?  Certainly I am not interested in knowing about
resources not in the collection, when looking for immediate access.  
Few libraries for which we catalogue would have the array of related
expressions and manifestations to display.

Since in Bibframe translations are different works rather than
different expressions of one work, FRBR does not seem to be central to
Bibframe's structure, although there will be links relating these
works.  Unfortunately, FRBR and WEMI organization of RDA do make RDA
difficult to comprehend.   Theory trumped pragmatism.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__



 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Cindy Wolff]

If I want an English translation of a work, why would I want to
know about the original and other translations?

I think the operative word here is I. What if
someone else wants to know, either a researcher or a library staff member
doing collection development?

The catalog serves many purposes
for many types of users on many levels, which makes it hard to fit into a
retail model of I want it, here it is. The catalog is part of
the research process in addition to being a delivery mechanism.

Cindy Wolff

 








 James
said:
 
The structure of the card catalog allowed
people to do the FRBR user
tasks (where--for those who
understood--people really and truly could
find/identify/select/obtain
works/expressions/manifestation/items by
their
authors/titles/subjects (or at least they could if the catalogers
had done their jobs correctly).
 
 I am second
to none in deploring the loss of some features of the card

catalogue.  But in addition to cataloguers doing their job, those
 cards had to be filed.  At the end of the card catalogue era, this
was
 becoming increasingly difficult in larger academic
institutions.  Some
 student filers were dumping cards rather
that filing them.  Escaping
 card filing was a major improvement
provided by OPACs, right up there
 with keyword searching.  In
Canada, micro or print catalgues produced
 by Utlas ending filing
for many libraries prior to OPACs.
 
 I agree with your
basic position on FRBR.  If I want an English
 translation of a
work, why would I want to know about the original and
 other
translations?  Certainly I am not interested in knowing about

resources not in the collection, when looking for immediate access.
 Few libraries for which we catalogue would have the array of
related
 expressions and manifestations to display.
 
 Since in Bibframe translations are different works rather than
 different expressions of one work, FRBR does not seem to be central
to
 Bibframe's structure, although there will be links relating
these
 works.  Unfortunately, FRBR and WEMI organization of RDA
do make RDA
 difficult to comprehend.   Theory trumped
pragmatism.
 
 
__   __   J. McRee
(Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
   {__  |   / Special Libraries
Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
   ___} |__
\__
 
 
 
 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Wagstaff, D John]

Yeah There's no I in RDA, guys

!!
Unhelpfully (but hoping to be excused because it's Friday),

John


John Wagstaff
Head, Music  Performing Arts Library
Interim Head, Literatures and Languages Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edu



From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Cindy Wolff
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR


If I want an English translation of a work, why would I want to

know about the original and other translations?

I think the operative word here is I. What if

someone else wants to know, either a researcher or a library staff member

doing collection development?

The catalog serves many purposes

for many types of users on many levels, which makes it hard to fit into a

retail model of I want it, here it is. The catalog is part of

the research process in addition to being a delivery mechanism.

Cindy Wolff








 James said:

The structure of the card catalog allowed people to do the FRBR user
tasks (where--for those who understood--people really and truly could
find/identify/select/obtain works/expressions/manifestation/items by
their authors/titles/subjects (or at least they could if the catalogers
had done their jobs correctly).

 I am second to none in deploring the loss of some features of the card
 catalogue. But in addition to cataloguers doing their job, those
 cards had to be filed. At the end of the card catalogue era, this was
 becoming increasingly difficult in larger academic institutions. Some
 student filers were dumping cards rather that filing them. Escaping
 card filing was a major improvement provided by OPACs, right up there
 with keyword searching. In Canada, micro or print catalgues produced
 by Utlas ending filing for many libraries prior to OPACs.

 I agree with your basic position on FRBR. If I want an English
 translation of a work, why would I want to know about the original and
 other translations? Certainly I am not interested in knowing about
 resources not in the collection, when looking for immediate access.
 Few libraries for which we catalogue would have the array of related
 expressions and manifestations to display.

 Since in Bibframe translations are different works rather than
 different expressions of one work, FRBR does not seem to be central to
 Bibframe's structure, although there will be links relating these
 works. Unfortunately, FRBR and WEMI organization of RDA do make RDA
 difficult to comprehend. Theory trumped pragmatism.


 __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.camailto:m...@slc.bc.ca)
 {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
 ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kevin M Randall]

Good answer, Cindy.  I think the general case is that people tend to want only 
the information they want-nothing more, nothing less.  And for each person, 
that specific information is going to be different.

But Mac's comment gets at the most pervasive misunderstanding of FRBR, a 
misunderstanding that hinders its acceptance.  FRBR is *not* about user 
displays.  At all.  When you see the following illustration in FRBR:

w1 Charles Dickens' A Christmas carol
e1 the author's original English text
e2 a Tamil translation by V. A. Venkatachari

it has nothing to do with an OPAC record display.  It is *not* saying that when 
you display A Christmas carol in the OPAC, under that title you have an entry 
for the original English text, then one for the Tamil translation, etc., and 
force the user to see all of these related resources that most of them have no 
interest in at all.

What it's saying is that the bibliographic data relate in this way:  the 
original English text is an expression of the original work; the Tamil 
translation is another expression of that same work.  Armed with that 
understanding of the relationships, we can then work on improving the 
bibliographic metadata and the discovery systems to help users better find the 
resources they're after.  But the way things are presented to the user are 
*entirely outside the scope of the FRBR report*!

A fully FRBR-aware system might give the user something that has only the 
following details:

Charles Dickens
A Christmas carol

And then tabs or buttons below, or menu choices on the side, or whatever, that 
say things like:

Print versions
Electronic versions
Sound recordings
Other language editions
Theater adapations
Movie adaptations

And when you make those selections, you are taken to those related resources.

And this is exactly the direction that developments seem to be going.  It's the 
basic concept at commercial web sites at Amazon, Best Buy, etc.  Anyone denying 
that this is FRBR in action totally misunderstands what FRBR is.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
k...@northwestern.edumailto:k...@northwestern.edu
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Cindy Wolff
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:23 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR


If I want an English translation of a work, why would I want to

know about the original and other translations?

I think the operative word here is I. What if

someone else wants to know, either a researcher or a library staff member

doing collection development?

The catalog serves many purposes

for many types of users on many levels, which makes it hard to fit into a

retail model of I want it, here it is. The catalog is part of

the research process in addition to being a delivery mechanism.

Cindy Wolff

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[J. McRee Elrod]

Kevin said:

FRBR is *not* about user displays.  At all.

Nor is RDA about display.  But isn't user display the end result of
what we do, and what must concern us?  What's the point if our efforts
don't result in intelligible displays?

It would seem to me the basic functional requirement of bibliographic
records is to support displays.  A screen full of irrelevant to the
patron data concerning other resources related to the sought resource
is not helpful in most situations.  For the researcher who may want
all that, it should be provided by a click on a related resources
button, not the first response of the OPAC.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR workshop: FRBR for art librarians

[Wagstaff, D John]

Hi Debbie! I hope you're doing well. I was wondering whether you have yet had a 
chance to watch the two RDA music cataloging webinars by Kathy Glennan on 
YouTube? They might be of interest to you and other UK members of IAML. Here's 
the link:



http://www.ala.org/alcts/confevents/upcoming/webinar/cat



Otherwise, of course, I'm sure you can just put in Kathy's name on YouTube and 
find them that way.



All best!



John



John Wagstaff
Head, Music  Performing Arts Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
School of Music
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070[X]
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edumailto:wagst...@illinois.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Lee, Deborah 
[deborah@courtauld.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 12:04 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR workshop: FRBR for art librarians


***Apologies for cross-posting***

For any UK/EIRE colleagues, who may be interested in this FRBR workshop led by 
Anne Welsh (UCL).  It is a general FRBR workshop including presentations, 
exercises and group discussions; however, the examples used in the workshop 
will be drawn from art documentation.

Best wishes,

Deborah Lee (secretary, ARLIS UK  Ireland Cataloguing and Classification 
Committee)
Deborah Lee
Senior cataloguer
Book Library
Courtauld Institute of Art
Somerset House
Strand
London WC2R 0RN

Telephone: 020 7848 2905
Email: deborah@courtauld.ac.ukmailto:deborah@courtauld.ac.uk
Now on at The Courtauld Gallery:

Peter Lely: A Lyrical Vision
11 October 2012 – 13 January 2013



[cid:image001.png@01CDB84D.19475430]

ARLIS/UK  Ireland Cataloguing and Classification Committee


FRBR for art librarians

FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) is the conceptual 
basis for RDA (Resource Description and Access). With the Library of Congress 
and the British Library working towards full RDA implementation by 31 March 
2013 and the hybrid environment of AACR2 and RDA already with us, it is 
essential to understand the thinking behind RDA. So if your WEMI is wobbly or 
your entities and their relationships are a bit muddled this is the event for 
you.

Organised by ARLIS Cataloguing and Classification Committee, we are very 
pleased to announce that the half day workshop will be led by Anne Welsh, 
lecturer in the Department of Information 
Studieshttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/ at University College 
Londonhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/ (UCL), with examples drawn from art documentation.

The event will take place from 1 pm – 5 pm on Tuesday 18 December 2012 at the 
University of East London, Docklands Campus, with an opportunity for networking 
with fellow attendees after the event over a glass of wine or soft drink.

For booking information, please see booking form below.


***Booking form***


FEES:  Refreshments will be provided, but please note that attendees will need 
to make their own arrangements concerning lunch.


ARLIS students/unwaged/retired

£23

ARLIS members

£45

Non-ARLIS students

£28

Non-ARLIS members

£55




N.B. For bookings cancelled after 4th December a charge of 10% of the total fee 
will be levelled. For bookings cancelled after 11th December the full fee may 
be charged.

BOOKING:  Please complete the form below and email it to Anne Newport, 
a.newp...@vam.ac.ukmailto:a.newp...@vam.ac.uk by 4th December.

Contact:
Anne Newport, National Art Library, Victoria and Albert Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 2RL. Tel. +44 (0)20 7942 2390[X].


I wish to attend the ARLIS FRBR for art librarians workshop on Tuesday 18th 
December 2012.

Please note: the details given below will be used in the compilation of a 
delegates list; if you do not wish your details to be included please tick this 
box  •

Please tick this box if you are a student or if you are unwaged or retired  •
Please state any specific dietary requirement that we should take into account:
NAME:
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE:



Tel.:  Fax: 
  Email:
I enclose my cheque made payable to ARLIS/UK  Ireland for £
OR Please send an invoice for £   to:




Please tick this box if you require a receipt  •
All bookings will be acknowledged by email or telephone.




The Courtauld Institute of Art is a company limited by guarantee (registered in 
England and Wales, number 04464432) and an exempt charity. SCT Enterprises 
Limited is a limited company (registered in England and Wales, number 3137515). 
Their registered offices are at Somerset House, Strand, London WC2R 0RN. The 
sale of items related to The Courtauld Gallery and its collections is managed 
by SCT Enterprises Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Courtauld 
Institute of Art.
This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR workshop: FRBR for art librarians

[Wagstaff, D John]

My apologies for posting a (slightly) personal message to the entire list. 
Nonetheless I hope its content is useful to others too.



John



John Wagstaff
Head, Music  Performing Arts Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
School of Music
1114 W. Nevada Street
Urbana IL61801
Tel. 217-244-4070[X]
e-mail: wagst...@illinois.edumailto:wagst...@illinois.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Lee, Deborah 
[deborah@courtauld.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 12:04 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR workshop: FRBR for art librarians


***Apologies for cross-posting***

For any UK/EIRE colleagues, who may be interested in this FRBR workshop led by 
Anne Welsh (UCL).  It is a general FRBR workshop including presentations, 
exercises and group discussions; however, the examples used in the workshop 
will be drawn from art documentation.

Best wishes,

Deborah Lee (secretary, ARLIS UK  Ireland Cataloguing and Classification 
Committee)
Deborah Lee
Senior cataloguer
Book Library
Courtauld Institute of Art
Somerset House
Strand
London WC2R 0RN

Telephone: 020 7848 2905
Email: deborah@courtauld.ac.ukmailto:deborah@courtauld.ac.uk
Now on at The Courtauld Gallery:

Peter Lely: A Lyrical Vision
11 October 2012 – 13 January 2013



[cid:image001.png@01CDB84D.19475430]

ARLIS/UK  Ireland Cataloguing and Classification Committee


FRBR for art librarians

FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) is the conceptual 
basis for RDA (Resource Description and Access). With the Library of Congress 
and the British Library working towards full RDA implementation by 31 March 
2013 and the hybrid environment of AACR2 and RDA already with us, it is 
essential to understand the thinking behind RDA. So if your WEMI is wobbly or 
your entities and their relationships are a bit muddled this is the event for 
you.

Organised by ARLIS Cataloguing and Classification Committee, we are very 
pleased to announce that the half day workshop will be led by Anne Welsh, 
lecturer in the Department of Information 
Studieshttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/ at University College 
Londonhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/ (UCL), with examples drawn from art documentation.

The event will take place from 1 pm – 5 pm on Tuesday 18 December 2012 at the 
University of East London, Docklands Campus, with an opportunity for networking 
with fellow attendees after the event over a glass of wine or soft drink.

For booking information, please see booking form below.


***Booking form***


FEES:  Refreshments will be provided, but please note that attendees will need 
to make their own arrangements concerning lunch.


ARLIS students/unwaged/retired

£23

ARLIS members

£45

Non-ARLIS students

£28

Non-ARLIS members

£55




N.B. For bookings cancelled after 4th December a charge of 10% of the total fee 
will be levelled. For bookings cancelled after 11th December the full fee may 
be charged.

BOOKING:  Please complete the form below and email it to Anne Newport, 
a.newp...@vam.ac.ukmailto:a.newp...@vam.ac.uk by 4th December.

Contact:
Anne Newport, National Art Library, Victoria and Albert Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 2RL. Tel. +44 (0)20 7942 2390[X].


I wish to attend the ARLIS FRBR for art librarians workshop on Tuesday 18th 
December 2012.

Please note: the details given below will be used in the compilation of a 
delegates list; if you do not wish your details to be included please tick this 
box  •

Please tick this box if you are a student or if you are unwaged or retired  •
Please state any specific dietary requirement that we should take into account:
NAME:
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE:



Tel.:  Fax: 
  Email:
I enclose my cheque made payable to ARLIS/UK  Ireland for £
OR Please send an invoice for £   to:




Please tick this box if you require a receipt  •
All bookings will be acknowledged by email or telephone.




The Courtauld Institute of Art is a company limited by guarantee (registered in 
England and Wales, number 04464432) and an exempt charity. SCT Enterprises 
Limited is a limited company (registered in England and Wales, number 3137515). 
Their registered offices are at Somerset House, Strand, London WC2R 0RN. The 
sale of items related to The Courtauld Gallery and its collections is managed 
by SCT Enterprises Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Courtauld 
Institute of Art.
This e-mail, including any attachments, is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it 
is addressed. Any unauthorised dissemination or copying of this e-mail or its 
attachments and any reliance on or use or disclosure of any information 
contained in them is strictly prohibited and may be illegal. If you have 
received this 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR and display

[James Weinheimer]

On 27/02/2012 05:02, Kelley McGrath wrote:
snip
There has been some discussion about the relationship between the FRBR 
entities (especially group 1) and end-user display or underlying data 
structure.


I think OLAC's FRBR-based prototype for moving image materials 
(http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/) is a good example of an 
interface where the underlying logic is based on FRBR, but the user 
display is not centered on the FRBR group 1 entities. We only display 
two levels: the work+primary/original expression and the 
expression-in-hand+manifestation+item-location. A brief overview of 
the prototype and its aims can be found in the first section of 
http://pages.uoregon.edu/kelleym/publications/FRBRFacets_C4L2012.pdf. 
We also don't limit the user to top-down access to the FRBR group 1 
entities. Many systems force users to start with the Work and move 
down, but through facets, we allow users equal flexibility to start 
from the bottom up with item location or manifestation format (e.g., 
DVD, Blu-ray). This is described in our JCDL short paper at 
http://pages.uoregon.edu/kelleym/publications/JCDL_OLAC_FRBR_prototype.pdf.


The data in the prototype came from a RDMS. However, the tables 
weren't strictly based on the FRBR entities (although they could have 
been).


I think this shows that you can build something that is conceptually 
based on FRBR where neither the display nor the underlying data 
structure maps 1:1 to the FRBR entities.

/snip

This is a very interesting project, and demonstrates once again, that 
*if* the emphasis is focused on the *users*, who are assumed to need to 
do the user tasks as defined in FRBR (i.e. the *functional* 
requirements), then those *functions* can be achieved through modern 
indexing tools instead of requiring new cataloging rules and new 
structures. These tools are found *right now* in Worldcat, Koha, the 
Extensible Catalog, and this one that you discuss, too. Probably others, 
too. Each of those tools can be improved, and probably relatively 
simply. Such a wonderful development should be seen as good and 
positive, especially during these difficult economic times.


We should push the computer systems to their utmost, instead of pushing 
the catalogers to do even more work that is simultaneously more complex. 
After all, that is one of the primary reasons for introducing 
technological innovations.


But, if the purpose of FRBR now is to enter the Linked Data universe, 
(which had not yet been foreseen when FRBR was first published) then 
that does indeed go beyond the functional requirements, and certainly 
goes far beyond matters of simple metadata. There are many, many, many 
ways of entering the Linked Data universe.

--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules* 
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts* 
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR and display

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: February 27, 2012 5:02 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR and display

...
This is a very interesting project, and demonstrates once again, that *if* the 
emphasis is focused on the *users*, who are assumed to need to do the user 
tasks as defined in FRBR (i.e. the *functional* requirements ...


What users want is to seek more than to find, but that doesn't mean that 
systems should be designed solely for this human characteristic.


As this article suggests,
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/08/seeking.single.html

what drives the human brain is the dopamine effects of endlessly searching, 
because the brain is more easily stimulated than satisfied. People want to 
search more than they want to find.

As this quote illustrates, how we think of user tasks and what a system should 
accomplish shouldn't be driven solely by user behavior that leads to useless 
results:

Temple Grandin writes of driving two indoor cats crazy by flicking a laser 
pointer around the room. They wouldn't stop stalking and pouncing on this 
ungraspable dot of light--their dopamine system pumping. She writes that no 
wild cat would indulge in such useless behavior: A cat wants to catch the 
mouse, not chase it in circles forever. She says mindless chasing makes an 
animal less likely to meet its real needs because it short-circuits 
intelligent stalking behavior. As we chase after flickering bits of 
information, it's a salutary warning.


FRBR is just the name of the entity-relationship analysis done on bibliographic 
data. It doesn't matter that it's called FRBR-- the results would have been 
the same whatever it would have been called, and it would have a minimum 
requirement in any systems requirements analysis. It produces results that are 
not met in current systems, especially when it comes to understanding data that 
is poorly formed, relationships that are murky or dependent on display issues, 
and data elements that are needlessly scattered ( the last point from 
http://pages.uoregon.edu/kelleym/publications/JCDL_OLAC_FRBR_prototype.pdf 
under 4 Modifying the FRBR Data Model).


I think we're bug-eyed by the spectacular rise of tools that stimulate the 
seeking behavior, but that runs the risk of distraction from basic user needs 
that still need to be catered for. We need to help people search, but not at 
the expense of intelligent behavior that allows us to settle on results found, 
taking the time to identify them properly and be more discriminating in what we 
select, as well as allowing people to develop the self-discipline to be 
satiated when they have obtained a resource.


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Bernhard Eversberg]

11.04.2011 22:20, Weinheimer Jim:


 As one of those veteran catalogers, I honestly do not see how the
 changes in RDA have a lot of potential.

If the test records are anything to go by, then indeed. And what
else are we to go by if that's what we're gonna get?
That stuff barely scratches the surface of RDA's real potential,
which would require a scenario 1, and that's unlikely to come
with MARC as it is (not because of ISO2709 but because of the
lack of linking techniques in the software biotopes where MARC
has to live). (But then, MARC records as we know them do also
not reflect the full potential of AACR2, for example,
some of the options for relationships in chapter 13.)



 Our rules have always been made for non-changing, physical items:
 books, serials, scores, recordings, maps, etc. but in the online
 environment, any record a catalog creates may not describe the remote
 resource just 5 minutes after it was created. ... Are librarians
 only interested in physical items that are arranged on shelves? I 
hope not!



Among the remote resources, there are many that resemble books in
every aspect except physicality. These we ought to be interested in,
and we are. Resources on Twitter, a.k.a. tweets, are at the other
extreme, as well as all news sites.
Books and their digital embodiments are solidified knowledge, recorded
for posterity as well as the present. E-books can be taken care of and
made findable in much different ways from physical books, and GBS is doing
that. They ought to be made available, findable, usable as much as
possible together with and not separated from physical books, and GBS is
already supporting that, too. But that is possible only because they
threw OCLC's data (catalog data) into their search engine.

Now, on the one hand, readers are turning to GBS as their catalog of
first choice since with some luck they get the real thing and not a
useless surrogate (a.k.a. catalog record), but if not, there's
Search in a library to fall back on - with no need to consult
the library's catalog directly. We ought to support these developments,
open up our catalogs for them, and we are doing that. Can RDA be
a more than marginally better tool here? Theoretically, yes, but
in reality? Is the part-whole relationship, for example, even being
considered? It wasn't under AACR2 although it would have been possible.

On the other hand, people at GBS are hard to impress by anything not
invented by themselves. Also, we don't know if they and their product
will be around for any longer term. To make libraries more dependent
on entities they have no influence on doesn't appear to be very wise.

Visibility on the road ahead remains, as always, limited. The true
potential of our vehicles is not necessarily what will help and what
will be needed in reality.

B.Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Weinheimer Jim]

Myers, John F. wrote:
snip
One could argue interminably the pros and cons of abbreviating or not.
I can see merits to both sides, as well as to native language
representation of missing date issue.  (That is, the replacement of
[s.l.] with [place of publication not identified], where [s.l.] replaces
the earlier [n.p.] for no place.)  I am however adequately convinced
by the machine processing crowd to hold my reservations in abeyance.

The Bible heading changes would happen regardless of RDA -- they were
the last proposal to change AACR2 and were rolled into RDA rather than
causing a new update to AACR2 in the middle of the RDA development
process.

If by lack of $b in titles you mean that the Other title information
element is not part of the core elements of RDA, I would point out,
insofar as AACR2 had core elements which I will equate with the first
level of description articulated at 1.0D1, it is neither a core element
of AACR2.  The equivalence of the RDA core element set as a Full level
record is an undesirable possibility, but is a consequence of policy
implementation not of RDA itself.
/snip

What I am asking is do we honestly and truly think that these tiny, 
insignificant changes are going to make any difference at all to our patrons? 
These changes certainly won't help anybody find anything--they are just changes 
in display: the elimination of O.T. and N.T., spelling out abbreviations, the 
subfield b. The only possibility of added access is getting rid of the rule of 
three, but that could just as easily reduce access since the only mandated 
access point is the first author. (Oh yes! Plus translators and illustrators of 
children's books!) Will the public suddenly like our records and find them 
useful after these changes? Why? 

We need to look at matters from *their* viewpoint, not ours. Look what they can 
do using other tools. Some are saying that search is going away altogether. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/bing-director-stefan-weit_n_844004.html.
 While I don't necessarily agree (and I hope not, as people can hear my views 
on search from my last podcast), these people, e.g. from Bing, have a *far 
bigger* voice in the information universe than any library cataloger, or group 
of library catalogers. We must do something, and something big.

Kevin Randall wrote:
snip
The questions above indicate that the questioner is missing the point of RDA 
entirely.  Abbreviations could be limited or eliminated entirely by a very 
simple amendment to AACR2.
/snip

I don't think I am missing the point of RDA, and the abbreviations are a great 
example. Do we really believe that a simple rule change will solve whatever 
problems the public supposedly has with abbreviations in the catalog? Sorry, 
but I find that very naive. To be fair, I was guilty of exactly the same thing 
back when the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe fell apart. I and my team at 
Princeton struggled mightily to fix all of the--who knows how many subject and 
corporate name headings in the catalog, but we did it. It was one of the tasks 
I took special pride in and the heading browses looked great! 

But then came the retrospective conversion project of the cards, and the 
beautiful displays of the headings were utterly spoiled by being inundated 
with zillions of obsolete headings! I was so mad until... I realized that what 
I was looking at was only the reality that confronted our patrons every day. 
When the patrons used both the cards and the OPAC (which they did constantly of 
course), everything had always been split, but for me as a cataloger, I was 
concentrating only on the OPAC and the cards were somehow outside. I had been 
ignoring the complete reality of the situation. Suddenly, I was confronted with 
what the users saw every day. I didn't like it, but it was a humbling moment.

Abbreviations are precisely the same thing: while new records will have their 
abbreviations spelled out, the old records will not. Our patrons will still 
have to work with those abbreviations, that is, unless some retrospective 
project is created, but what a waste of resources that would be! In any case, 
thinking that making a new rule is going to solve a problem, when millions of 
records that will not be fixed will still be in people's faces every day, in 
every search result, shows one of the reason why technical services librarians 
are often held in such low regard by other library divisions. So many times, 
technical services people see only what they want to see, just like I did with 
the Soviet Union/Eastern European headings.

We shouldn't delude ourselves that these insignificant changes (for our users, 
but not insignificant for us) will make any difference in the scheme of things. 
As Mac said, it is not the problem of the rules, but the problems we are facing 
are in other areas. 

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting Bernhard Eversberg e...@biblio.tu-bs.de:


Is the part-whole relationship, for example, even being
considered? It wasn't under AACR2 although it would have been possible.



Bernard, I'm not sure what you mean by even being considered (by  
whom?) but FRBR and RDA do define all of the conceptual structure  
necessary for whole/part (and a host of other relationships). This is  
relatively easy to accomplish in a data format based on  
entity-relationship or linked data models. Even if we have such a  
model for our data, though, there is the question of practice in the  
level of description.


For example, in a good linked data interface, it would be possible to  
state that the resource you are describing (a monograph in a series)  
is a member of a series that has its own record. That would be a  
fairly simple matter of creating a is member of link from the  
monograph to the series (and could replace the series statement).  
That's a very different scenario from creating a description for every  
story in a book of short stories -- which would be added work compared  
to what we do today.


However, in the same way that libraries today can purchase tables of  
contents to add to their records, or can do copy cataloging off of  
records that have ToC's, I can imagine that we could begin to share  
these analytic entries including the whole/part relationship. So a  
proper data format could encourage the creation of this level of  
detail as long as the cataloger effort required remains low.


One of the advantages of linked data is that it is more dynamic than  
our current record-based data. With a catalog record, adding new  
fields is somewhat onerous, and adding new TYPES of fields is a huge  
change. With linked data, additions to the data do not require  
re-indexing of whole records because the database consists of  
individual data elements, not records. Adding a relationship doesn't  
*change* anything, it simply adds information. (I will try to isolate  
my PPT slides related to this issue and make a short document out of  
them. It's an important point, best understood through a few visuals.)


kc

--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kevin M. Randall]

James Weinheimer wrote:

 I don't think I am missing the point of RDA, and the abbreviations are a
 great example. Do we really believe that a simple rule change will solve
 whatever problems the public supposedly has with abbreviations in the
 catalog? Sorry, but I find that very naive.

Did you read the rest of my post?  This response shows that you still do not
understand at all.  The simple rule changes are *NOT* the changes that are
significant in RDA.  What is significant and has great potential is the
entire concept behind RDA, creating a framework that brings metadata into
the current age of information technology.

When work was first begun on AACR3, the problem was that it was essentially
just another revision of AACR2.  If you look at the Dec. 2004 draft today,
it hardly looks any different from AACR2!  That draft got a *huge* negative
response, and it soon became apparent that the entire thing needed to be
completely re-thought.  If we had ended up getting AACR3, it would have been
just a rewrite of AACR2, incorporating the kinds of little changes that Jim
has been citing.  It would have taken us nowhere.

I think what the Committee of Principals and the Joint Steering Committee
ended up doing was very brave (they have received a lot of criticism through
the years, including from yours truly).  AACR3 was totally thrown out, and
replaced with a whole new concept.  While I still see large problems with
the Toolkit functionality, language of the guidelines, and distribution
model for RDA, I have to admit that the JSC really got it right with the
foundation, the idea of uniquely identifying each part of the description,
each of the relationships.  The things like abbreviations, or having other
title information be required or not, can be changed back and forth by the
JSC at any time and not have any significant impact on what RDA is and is
all about.  Having a list of elements and relationships, and guidelines for
determining the values of those elements and relationships, is the essence
of RDA and is what will enable us to have much more powerful metadata.  It's
only one part of what we need; we also need carriers to store the metadata
and systems to manipulate it, but now we at least have the important first
step, which is identifying all of the pieces of metadata.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: k...@northwestern.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Weinheimer Jim]

Kevin M. Randall wrote:
snip
James Weinheimer wrote:

 I don't think I am missing the point of RDA, and the abbreviations are a
 great example. Do we really believe that a simple rule change will solve
 whatever problems the public supposedly has with abbreviations in the
 catalog? Sorry, but I find that very naive.

Did you read the rest of my post?  This response shows that you still do not
understand at all.  The simple rule changes are *NOT* the changes that are
significant in RDA.  What is significant and has great potential is the
entire concept behind RDA, creating a framework that brings metadata into
the current age of information technology
/snip

Well, if you insist so strongly that I don't understand, it certainly must be 
true! :-)

But please bear with me and let me insist that I do understand. The underlying 
structure of RDA, which tries to envision the FRBR structure, is still 
something that is highly debatable. First, there is still no evidence that this 
structure is wanted or needed by our patrons. Every FRBR-type project I have 
seen is of limited use for our patrons, in my professional opinion, since our 
patrons are moving away from such things into the world of search. Certainly 
people will look at and play with the displays, but there is still no evidence 
that it provides what they need, especially WEMI. And WEMI is one of the main 
products we will be making. I think very, very few people need that. The second 
point, and of course the most important, is the business case that demonstrates 
that all this is actually worthwhile in the business and financial sense. Both 
of these points have been advanced over and over throughout the years and 
certainly didn't start with me.

In any case, I think the library world has to demonstrate some kind of 
substantive advances, and I think we have to demonstrate them soon since the 
information world is moving away from us faster and faster, and along with that 
world goes a lot of the funding. Instead of swallowing the promises of a future 
Eldorado, the powers that be are starting to ask: what can you do now? This is 
why I mentioned the abbreviations problem and the changes to the Russian 
headings. We can change everything in our new records but there is still a 
massive amount of legacy data out there that our patrons will be seeing and 
working with every day just as much, or probably far more, than with the newer 
records we create. So, whether it's some completely insignificant rule change 
about abbreviations, or something bigger with new frameworks and structures, it 
all comes down to the same thing: our patrons will be working with both every 
day in every single search they do. This is why I say we have to look at it 
through their eyes, and not ours. From that point of view, things look much 
less revolutionary.

Now, we can either convert the older records, or we could place those older 
records into a separate database, in essence, archive it all. This would be one 
idea that I may go along with, and then start fresh with a brand-new format, 
rules, and so on and the task would be to get the two databases to interoperate 
as closely as possible. Of course, all this assumes that RDA and FRBR is useful 
and needed by our patrons AND that it's worth the costs.

I am certainly not saying that I know what people want when they search for 
information. That can only be discovered after research, especially in times as 
dynamic as our own. To begin creating an FRBR/RDA structure on the assumption 
that it provides people with what they need (otherwise why would you create 
it?), without any evidence for it, is unwarranted. So, the FRBR/RDA structure 
may be revolutionary and great, or it may just be a continuation of the 19th 
century structures, placed into the 21st century, which is my own opinion.

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Deborah Tomares]

I would be curious to see links to evidence-based papers from rigorous
research studies that prove that patrons want FRBR/WEMI in searching,
retrieval, etc. I've found nothing on the IFLA website, where I would have
thought they would reside. All papers there
(http://www.ifla.org/en/node/881) seem to lack any reference to user
studies. I've not seen them elsewhere, either. So please provide links to
the lot of research that's out there--thanks!

Deborah Tomaras
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9561
dtoma...@nypl.org

Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New
York Public Library policy.




  From:   Kevin M. Randall k...@northwestern.edu
 


  To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA  



  Date:   04/12/2011 01:12 PM   



  Subject:Re: [RDA-L] FRBR  



  Sent by:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA  







James Weinheimer wrote:

 I am certainly not saying that I know what people want when they search
for
 information. That can only be discovered after research, especially in
times
 as dynamic as our own. To begin creating an FRBR/RDA structure on the
 assumption that it provides people with what they need (otherwise why
would
 you create it?), without any evidence for it, is unwarranted. So, the
 FRBR/RDA structure may be revolutionary and great, or it may just be a
 continuation of the 19th century structures, placed into the 21st
century,
 which is my own opinion.

If there were no evidence, I might give your opinion more weight.  But
there
is ample evidence, if you are willing to see it.  There has been a lot of
research into what users are looking for and how they're looking for it.
There has been a lot of research into FRBR.  OCLC's been doing a lot of
research on both, and they are certainly not alone.  There's always room
for
more research, but to imply that FRBR and RDA have been developed in an
information vacuum is far from the truth.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: k...@northwestern.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Karen Coyle]

Have you tried plugging frbr user studies into google?

I have been particularly impressed by these studies done by Maj Zumer:

http://www.ff.uni-lj.si/oddelki/biblio/oddelek/osebje/dokumenti/pisanskizumer1a.pdf
http://www.ff.uni-lj.si/oddelki/biblio/oddelek/osebje/dokumenti/pisanskizumer2a.pdf

There are also the papers and presentations of Zhang and Salaba.

These studies do NOT necessarily show that FRBR is just fine, but they  
do investigate FRBR in relation to actual user activities. There are  
also others, but you can google for those.


kc

Quoting Deborah Tomares dtoma...@nypl.org:


I would be curious to see links to evidence-based papers from rigorous
research studies that prove that patrons want FRBR/WEMI in searching,
retrieval, etc. I've found nothing on the IFLA website, where I would have
thought they would reside. All papers there
(http://www.ifla.org/en/node/881) seem to lack any reference to user
studies. I've not seen them elsewhere, either. So please provide links to
the lot of research that's out there--thanks!

Deborah Tomaras
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9561
dtoma...@nypl.org

Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New
York Public Library policy.



  From:   Kevin M. Randall k...@northwestern.edu

  To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA

  Date:   04/12/2011 01:12 PM

  Subject:Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

  Sent by:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description  
and Access RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA







James Weinheimer wrote:


I am certainly not saying that I know what people want when they search

for

information. That can only be discovered after research, especially in

times

as dynamic as our own. To begin creating an FRBR/RDA structure on the
assumption that it provides people with what they need (otherwise why

would

you create it?), without any evidence for it, is unwarranted. So, the
FRBR/RDA structure may be revolutionary and great, or it may just be a
continuation of the 19th century structures, placed into the 21st

century,

which is my own opinion.


If there were no evidence, I might give your opinion more weight.  But
there
is ample evidence, if you are willing to see it.  There has been a lot of
research into what users are looking for and how they're looking for it.
There has been a lot of research into FRBR.  OCLC's been doing a lot of
research on both, and they are certainly not alone.  There's always room
for
more research, but to imply that FRBR and RDA have been developed in an
information vacuum is far from the truth.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: k...@northwestern.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345





--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kevin M. Randall]

Deborah Tomaras wrote:

 I would be curious to see links to evidence-based papers from rigorous
 research studies that prove that patrons want FRBR/WEMI in searching,
 retrieval, etc. I've found nothing on the IFLA website, where I would have
 thought they would reside. All papers there
 (http://www.ifla.org/en/node/881) seem to lack any reference to user
 studies. I've not seen them elsewhere, either. So please provide links to
 the lot of research that's out there--thanks!

OCLC has a research home page at http://www.oclc.org/research/ and you can
type frbr in the search box to find what they have done with FRBR.

Also, to begin looking for research on FRBR you can type the words frbr
and research into the search box of your favorite search engine and get a
good start there.  For instance, one article discussing two FRBR case
studies can be found at
http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.1/full.text/ayres.html
.  There is an article called User research and testing of FRBR prototype
systems by Yin Zhang and Athena Salaba in Proceedings of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 44, issue 1.

I'm not a researcher, what I found through those two simple searches (the
citations I gave are only a tiny sampling of what I found) show that stuff
*is* out there.  More elaborate searching, not to mention following
citations in the articles, will unearth much more.  How rigorous any
particular study is, I can't say.  But research on both user search in
general and FRBR in particular has been done and is being done.

(BTW, please don't get hung up on whether patrons want FRBR/WEMI in
searching.  Patrons don't think (and won't think and don't have to think)
in FRBR terminology.  FRBR is only the conceptual model for the metadata,
designed for use by information technologists.  The group 1 entities (WEMI)
are only the labels used by information technologists to describe parts of
the FRBR model.  Users don't care, and furthermore have no need to know,
what labels we use for the entities and the relationships, as long as the
pieces of metadata all relate together in a way that successfully leads them
to the information they're seeking.)

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: k...@northwestern.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M. Randall
 Sent: April 12, 2011 2:10 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR


...


 (BTW, please don't get hung up on whether patrons want FRBR/WEMI in
 searching.  Patrons don't think (and won't think and don't have to think)
 in FRBR terminology.  FRBR is only the conceptual model for the metadata,
 designed for use by information technologists.  The group 1 entities (WEMI)
 are only the labels used by information technologists to describe parts of
 the FRBR model.  Users don't care, and furthermore have no need to know,
 what labels we use for the entities and the relationships, as long as the
 pieces of metadata all relate together in a way that successfully leads them
 to the information they're seeking.)


That's a good point about what patrons want or don't want. Patrons do ask 
individual questions, and so it's a matter of thinking about how best to 
organize data that is most efficient to 1) meet the patrons' needs, and 2) 
allow for economical and efficient cataloging.

If labels like FRBR or WEMI are problems, perhaps it's best to move them aside 
and let people ask the basic questions about the data they're working with.

What I think people will end up with will be the same categories as are in 
FRBR, and probably additional categories, with more relationships and longer 
lists of attributes for each category, but nonetheless data that extends the 
FRBR model rather than replaces it.

Consider this NASA paper, 
http://vso1.nascom.nasa.gov/vso/misc/jhourcle_ASIST_2008.pdf, FRBR Applied to 
Scientific Data.

Look at the basic questions asked:

- Is the data calibrated for the use I want?

- Is a local copy available?

- Can I cluster the records to keep from overwhelming the user?

- At what point is it necessary to disambiguate between two similar items?

FRBR is just the name of the entity-relationship data model applied to data 
traditionally found in catalog records. One can quibble about some 
categorization here and there, but it's not as if bibliographic data is so 
wonderfully different or ensconced in amber in our card catalog-based paradigm 
that such an exercise would never apply or never work. Making that suggestion 
seems too much like suggesting that questions should never be asked, that data 
should never be modeled, and that new methods for delivering that data should 
never be explored.

Consider the principle objectives, as worded in RDA 17.2, that capture the 
essential basis of the FRBR Find user task.

The data recorded to reflect primary relationships should enable the user to:
1) find all resources that embody a particular work or a particular expression
2) find all items that exemplify a manifestation

The Find task here is a little more refined than typical keyword searching. 
It means: find it once--find all of them. Find one work and you have the 
information to find all of them. Find a resource by one person, and you can 
find all resources associated with that person. That user task is typically 
accomplished by controlled headings or by control numbers of some kind.

Is that what users want? Once they find out about an author, do they want ALL 
the works created by that author? Do they care if they miss out? Do we care if 
they miss out?

By modeling out the data, FRBR can take that question and point to ways in 
which that user task can best be accomplished. Sticking with our existing 
record and heading structure has problems because what we're saying about the 
data is often only implicit and not useable outside of the card catalog 
paradigm.

This quote from the FRBR report points out what is happening in catalog records 
today-- elements and access point are just being tossed together. That's great 
if we want to read prose-- not so great if we want to get some useful 
functionality that arises when we model and organize the data in explicit ways.

http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current5.htm

Main quote:
Relationships may be reflected in bibliographic records in a number of ways. 
Some relationships, especially those depicted in the entity-relationship 
diagrams in Chapter 3 (Figures 3.1 through 3.3), are often reflected simply by 
concatenating attributes of one entity with attributes of the related entity in 
a single record. For example, a record will normally couple the attributes of a 
particular manifestation with the attributes of the expression that is embodied 
in that manifestation and with the attributes of the work that is realized 
through that expression. Relationships are also frequently reflected implicitly 
by appending to the record a heading identifying a related entity.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Adam L. Schiff]

Patrons want the director's cut of a motion picture, or they don't want 
the colorized version of a classic bw film.  They may or may not care if 
they will get widescreen or full screen.  They want translations into 
English of works, and sometimes they want them by a particular translator. 
These things can sometimes easily be found in our current catalogs, 
sometimes can be found but not so easily, and sometimes cannot be found at 
all.  Displaying groups of related resources in our current ILSs is less 
than desirable, and the discovery interfaces are not great for many of 
them.  This is where I think FRBR provides great potential to group 
related things together.  Patrons don't need to know that we call these 
things works, expressions, manifestations, and items and they don't need 
to know anything about FRBR.  But they do search for FRBR entities without 
knowing it.


Check out OLAC's FRBR-inspired, work-centric, faceted discovery interface 
for moving images at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com   It's still very 
much in prototype, but with descriptive data carefully recorded in 
appropriate elements, one can imagine a really robust system that would 
allow patrons to do the kinds of searches I mentioned above and more. 
This is the potential of RDA, that probably won't be realized in a MARC 
environment, at least not without MARC fields and tags being made even 
more discrete so that RDA elements could more clearly map to single tags 
and subfields.


I cannot wait for the day when (assuming we do implement RDA) instead of a 
blank template in OCLC that we have to encode in MARC, we get a screen 
which prompts us to fill in values for RDA elements.  Catalogers shouldn't 
need to know the behind the scenes coding and communication standard, we 
should just have to supply the metadata.  If we need the record to be 
output in MARC, the system should be able to do that for us.  But I hope 
we will get to the point where we are creating records in OCLC or other 
systems just by recording data for each core RDA element and for other 
elements that our communities/cooperative programs/individual 
agencies/cataloger judgment deems important.  Give me check boxes to 
indicate what types of illustrations the resource has.  Let me use 
identifiers for entities so that I don't have to copy or key long 
character strings and so if the authorized form of access point for the 
entity changes, all my records that point to it will automatically get the 
revised form.  Now how do we get OCLC and system vendors to develop these 
tools?  Well we first need to make an implementation decision and then see 
what we can push for I think.


Adam

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Kevin M. Randall wrote:


Deborah Tomaras wrote:


I would be curious to see links to evidence-based papers from rigorous
research studies that prove that patrons want FRBR/WEMI in searching,
retrieval, etc. I've found nothing on the IFLA website, where I would have
thought they would reside. All papers there
(http://www.ifla.org/en/node/881) seem to lack any reference to user
studies. I've not seen them elsewhere, either. So please provide links to
the lot of research that's out there--thanks!


OCLC has a research home page at http://www.oclc.org/research/ and you can
type frbr in the search box to find what they have done with FRBR.

Also, to begin looking for research on FRBR you can type the words frbr
and research into the search box of your favorite search engine and get a
good start there.  For instance, one article discussing two FRBR case
studies can be found at
http://alia.org.au/publishing/alj/54.1/full.text/ayres.html
.  There is an article called User research and testing of FRBR prototype
systems by Yin Zhang and Athena Salaba in Proceedings of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 44, issue 1.

I'm not a researcher, what I found through those two simple searches (the
citations I gave are only a tiny sampling of what I found) show that stuff
*is* out there.  More elaborate searching, not to mention following
citations in the articles, will unearth much more.  How rigorous any
particular study is, I can't say.  But research on both user search in
general and FRBR in particular has been done and is being done.

(BTW, please don't get hung up on whether patrons want FRBR/WEMI in
searching.  Patrons don't think (and won't think and don't have to think)
in FRBR terminology.  FRBR is only the conceptual model for the metadata,
designed for use by information technologists.  The group 1 entities (WEMI)
are only the labels used by information technologists to describe parts of
the FRBR model.  Users don't care, and furthermore have no need to 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mike Tribby]

I cannot wait for the day when (assuming we do implement RDA) instead of a 
blank template in OCLC that we have to encode in MARC, we get a screen which 
prompts us to fill in values for RDA elements.  Catalogers shouldn't need to 
know the behind the scenes coding and communication standard, we should just 
have to supply the metadata.  If we need the record to be output in MARC, the 
system should be able to do that for us.  But I hope we will get to the point 
where we are creating records in OCLC or other systems just by recording data 
for each core RDA element and for other elements that our 
communities/cooperative programs/individual agencies/cataloger judgment deems 
important.  Give me check boxes to indicate what types of illustrations the 
resource has.  Let me use identifiers for entities so that I don't have to copy 
or key long character strings and so if the authorized form of access point for 
the entity changes, all my records that point to it will automatically get the 
revised form.  Now how do we get OCLC and system vendors to develop these 
tools?  Well we first need to make an implementation decision and then see what 
we can push for I think.

That would all be great, and I think most of what Adam describes could be 
delivered by ILS vendors today or at least very soon. And that's the 
significant doubt I have about it: nothing has been keeping ILS vendors from 
creating more advanced systems other than perhaps their security in the idea 
that they don't have to make the effort to stay in business. We should indeed 
see what we can push for. If adopting RDA facilitates making ILS vendors 
responsive, so much the better, but up to now they haven't shown a great deal 
of interest in quantum improvements.

Also: assuming we do implement RDA? Can anyone imagine a cataloging world 
post-non-implementation? Regardless of any amount of sentiment against RDA, I 
have a hard time imagining those who have worked so hard for so long to make 
RDA a reality accepting a decision not to implement. Perhaps my belief that it 
is not a done deal is faltering.


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Mike Tribby
 Sent: April 12, 2011 3:43 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

...

 That would all be great, and I think most of what Adam describes could be
 delivered by ILS vendors today or at least very soon. And that's the
 significant doubt I have about it: nothing has been keeping ILS vendors from
 creating more advanced systems other than perhaps their security in the idea
 that they don't have to make the effort to stay in business. We should indeed
 see what we can push for. If adopting RDA facilitates making ILS vendors
 responsive, so much the better, but up to now they haven't shown a great deal
 of interest in quantum improvements.



Coming up this month is the first programming to add RDA element views to ILS 
software at the MARC tag level:
http://www.rdatoolkit.org/blog/119


In the case of my ILS, Polaris, the GMD is not used and has been replaced by 
fixed fields values to generate icons and text labels. It's quite an 
improvement over the GMD and the endless tinkering that was needed for the GMD 
to display useful information.

On one level, it's easy to say one hurdle with RDA has been removed-- no need 
to worry about the new records without 245$h.

On another level, it's great to see functionality that anticipates RDA, with 
its element set and entity-relationship view of cataloging data. The new way of 
doing things is hierarchical, flexible, customizable, easy to maintain, easy to 
upgrade, and independent of extraneous concerns such as typing, punctuation, 
and subfield sequencing.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mark Ehlert]

Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca wrote:
 Coming up this month is the first programming to add RDA element views to ILS 
 software at the MARC tag level:
 http://www.rdatoolkit.org/blog/119

The software in question being Connexion Client 2.30, just announced today.

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
Bibliographic  Technical      15 Andersen Library
  Services (BATS) Unit        222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
http://www.minitex.umn.edu/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Deborah Tomares]

I've been following this discussion with interest, but feel the need to
inject an unhappy reality into it. I attended a program on Friday, given by
a Digital Strategist, an ALA mover and shaker. This person dismissed
all of cataloging in a single sentence, offhand, while discussing something
else. Her vision includes librarians facilitating discovery of soft
sources of information (her words), as opposed to authoritative [i.e.,
published] sources. In doing so, she said (roughly paraphrasing): Those
sources all have records in OCLC anyway, and we can just download them into
our catalogs. In the face of attitudes like this, taken by persons in
positions of power, all our debates about competing cataloging codes seem
like navel-gazing, and self-delusion. Neither code will make a case for our
relevance in the future of the profession, if librarianship is being
re-imagined as a kinder, gentler Facebook. I'm feeling pessimistic about
the future of cataloging in general; and it suddenly seems like a waste of
time to debate how people want to find things in the catalog, if no one,
library administrations included, feels that they'll even be looking there.
The digital strategist claims that people want to connect instead of
find things now; and I fear that digital strategists like these are
driving many libraries, including my own. I'd love to hear some more
optimistic views of the future, or ideas for cases to make to such people
about why cataloging still matters.

Deborah Tomaras
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9561
dtoma...@nypl.org

Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New
York Public Library policy.

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Guy Vernon Frost]

I concur. very nice summation. Change needs to occur, but it seems to me
it's going in the wrong direction too.

 

Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S 

Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing 

Associate Professor of Library Science 

Odum Library, Valdosta State University

Valdosta, GA 31698-0150  Depository 0125 

229-259-5060 ; FAX 229-333-5862

gfr...@valdosta.edu

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 

Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which it
is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the fact
that RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to each
bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more discouraged.
Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath.  It desperately
needed to become simpler, more transparent, and more attractive to library
school students, easier for management to understand.  Instead, it seems to
me that the opposite is happening, and at the worst possible time.  It seems
to me that our leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining
to us why what they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to
the ground. 

This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for
twenty years -- not that of my employer.

 

 

 

Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

The work Austen, Jane, 1775-1817. Pride and prejudice would be found in a 
700, as a way of indicating a relationship. There will also likely be a 500 
note like Based on the novel by Jane Austen. The person entity, Jane Austen, 
doesn't have a relationship to the work as a motion picture, nor is she a 
contributor to the motion picture as an expression (she shouldn't be found in a 
700 for those reasons). Her relationship to the motion picture is only 
indirect, and is through her own work, which should have the attribute novel 
and her as a Creator.

That's the problem with the 700 field -- the relationship is often not 
explicit, and the explicit information is usually somewhere else. This makes it 
difficult for machine-processing and producing intelligible, highly functional 
displays (assuming we are no longer limited to creating catalog card displays).


RDA would combine the two fields-- the added entry for the work and the 500 
note:

Element - Related work

Value [using an authorized access point] - Austen, Jane, 1775-1817. Pride and 
prejudice.

Designator (these are hierarchical) - based on (work), or, adaptation of 
(work), or, motion picture adaptation of (work)
[reciprocal values for the other record are also provided]


In MARC, this would rendered as:

700 1_ $i motion picture adaptation of (work) $a Austen, Jane, $d 1775-1817. $t 
Pride and prejudice.

(Another challenge catalogers face is the messy complexity of MARC, since one 
has to sift through the morass of codes in order to find the logic of what one 
is trying to say-- a relationship between two distinct entities is being made).


The values derived from the note Based on the novel by Jane Austen would be 
redundant because those elements are also attached to the original work, the 
novel by Jane Austen (and as such are elements associated with that work).

The problems with the current method are as follows...
500 Based on the novel by Jane Austen.
-- too generic; redundant information if relationship to novel is explicitly 
mapped out
700 Austen, Jane, 1775-1817. Pride and prejudice
-- relationship not specified

Using an element set allows two advantages:

Better querying. One can more readily ask questions of the database like 
---Show me all the motion pictures based on novels by Jane Austen.---

Better display control. With the current method, elements are scattered or 
loosely concatenated, sometimes making relationships only implicit. With the 
new method, relationships are explicit, and displays can be generated after the 
fact with concatenated elements.

As an example, displays could be generated automatically from the elements 
involved with the two related works in this order (or in any predetermined or 
conditional order):

Related work: motion picture adaptation of Pride and Prejudice (novel, author 
Jane Austen, 1775-1817).

The benefit is that you could display as much or as little detail as is needed. 
This is just an example, but it shows the flexibility and elimination of 
redundancy that could happen with the consistent use of an element set and an 
entity-relationship
model. One can imagine other display options for the entire set of 
inter-related elements involved...

- display at that point on the screen of links to the manifestation and/or 
items if the library held copies or had access to the related work
- automatic reciprocal relationships on the record for the other work
- English variant title(s) displayed alongside the work title if the original 
work title is in another language

--

One can already see such flexibility in the FRBR-inspired AustLit
(scroll down the help page in http://www.austlit.edu.au/help).

Names of persons are accompanied with an a.k.a and an also writes as.

Titles of works in the result are accompanied by additional identifying 
elements, as in

Rabbits -- POETRY -- 1932
or with other elements such as appears in or this work is also known under 
alternative titles(s).


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library


 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Aleta Copeland
 Sent: April 11, 2011 10:07 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 However, you will find her as a 700.

 **
 **
 Aleta Copeland, MLS
 Head of Technical Services
 Ouachita Parish Public Library
 1800 Stubbs Ave.
 Monroe, LA 71201
 318-327-1490 ex. 3015

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia
 Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 10:08 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 You will not find Austen, Jane 1775-1817 as the 'main entry' on any AACR2
 record for a movie version of Pride and Prejudice. - Yes, of course, that's

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Lasater, Mary Charles]

I also agree. Earlier today I saw the PCC Discussion Paper on RDA 
implementation. Perhaps this message would be an appropriate response. That 
position paper seems oblivious to the current 'real' environment.

Mary Charles Lasater
Authorities Coordinator
Vanderbilt University

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

I concur... very nice summation. Change needs to occur, but it seems to me it's 
going in the wrong direction too.

Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S
Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing
Associate Professor of Library Science
Odum Library, Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698-0150  Depository 0125
229-259-5060 ; FAX 229-333-5862
gfr...@valdosta.edumailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which it 
is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the fact that 
RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to each 
bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more discouraged.  
Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath.  It desperately needed 
to become simpler, more transparent, and more attractive to library school 
students, easier for management to understand.  Instead, it seems to me that 
the opposite is happening, and at the worst possible time.  It seems to me that 
our leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining to us why what 
they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to the ground.
This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for twenty 
years -- not that of my employer.



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Bob Hall]

Here, here!

... well said.

R.

--
Robert C.W. Hall, Jr.
Technical Services Associate Librarian
Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA  01742
978-318-3343 -- FAX: 978-318-3344 -- http://www.concordlibrary.org/
bh...@minlib.net
--



-Original Message-

From: Lasater, Mary Charles mary.c.lasa...@vanderbilt.edu

To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA

Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:25:36 -0500

Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR




I also agree. Earlier today I saw the PCC Discussion Paper on RDA 
implementation. Perhaps this message would be an appropriate response. That 
position paper seems oblivious to the current ‘real’ environment.

Mary Charles Lasater
Authorities Coordinator
Vanderbilt University

From:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf OfGuy Vernon Frost
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

I concur… very nice summation. Change needs to occur, but it seems to me 
it’s going in the wrong direction too.

Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S
Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing
Associate Professor of Library Science
Odum Library, Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698-0150  Depository 0125
229-259-5060 ; FAX 229-333-5862
gfr...@valdosta.edu [mailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu]

From:Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf OfBillie Hackney
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L]
 FRBR

Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which it 
is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the fact 
that RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to each 
bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more discouraged.  
Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath.  It desperately 
needed to become simpler, more transparent, and more attractive to library 
school students, easier for management to understand.  Instead, it seems to 
me that the opposite is happening, and at the worst possible time.  It seems 
to me that our leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining 
to us why what they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to 
the ground.
This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for 
twenty years -- not that of my employer.



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[J. McRee Elrod]

Debirah Tomares said:
Her vision includes librarians facilitating discovery of soft
sources of information (her words), as opposed to authoritative [i.e.,
published] sources. In doing so, she said (roughly paraphrasing): Those
sources all have records in OCLC anyway ...

Of the special libraries for which we catalogue, up to 50% of
materials  do not have derviced records.  for aggrigators about 50%,
and  for electronic publishers, none do.  What she says may apply to
Pocunkville Public, but not to major and specilized collections.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Harden, Jean]

My experience leads me to the opposite conclusion. For people who don't already 
know how to catalog, much of RDA *is* simpler, more transparent, and so forth 
than AACR2. It's only those of us who have been using AACR2 for years that have 
so much trouble grasping the new rules.
In my job I teach a steady stream of young catalogers, and I was also in the 
RDA test. Teaching AACR2 while testing RDA gave me a daily side-by-side 
comparison. I have found that new catalogers very often stumble into doing 
descriptive cataloging right according to RDA when they come to the end of 
their AACR2 knowledge.
In formal classes, I have taught FRBR for at least a couple of years now. I 
find that people without previous cataloging experience understand the basics 
of FRBR within about half an hour. Then we do a couple more hours of exercises 
to cement the concepts (take books, scores, recordings, videos, etc. from the 
collection and make cards for the work, expression, manifestation, item, 
related works, responsible persons, and whatever else suits the particular 
group of students, putting these cards on the relevant spot on a labeled table 
or even floor). I haven't yet had a student fail to get a firm grasp on these 
basic ideas within one graduate-length class session.
Jean
Jean Harden
Music Catalog Librarian
Libraries
University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle #305190
Denton, TX  76203-5017
jean.har...@unt.edu
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which it 
is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the fact that 
RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to each 
bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more discouraged.  
Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath.  It desperately needed 
to become simpler, more transparent, and more attractive to library school 
students, easier for management to understand.  Instead, it seems to me that 
the opposite is happening, and at the worst possible time.  It seems to me that 
our leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining to us why what 
they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to the ground.
This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for twenty 
years -- not that of my employer.



Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edumailto:bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Deborah Tomares]

Mac (and others):

I didn't mean that the Digital Strategist was right--obviously, as a
cataloger, I know the contrary. Just that that is often the opinion of
those movers and shakers, and I don't see how we can convince them that
a: their glib assumptions are wrong, and b: it still matters to people what
we do. I know that digital strategy etc. is in control here in NYPL, and
they have similar viewpoints. Given this attitude that's prevalent, if not
universal, among library administrations, I don't think any rule set is
going to change their minds. And certainly insular intra-cataloging debates
won't touch them. Hence the depression.

Deborah Tomaras, NACO Coordinator
Librarian II
Western European Languages Team
New York Public Library
Library Services Center
31-11 Thomson Ave.
Long Island City, N.Y. 11101
(917) 229-9561
dtoma...@nypl.org

Disclaimer: Alas, my ideas are merely my own, and not indicative of New
York Public Library policy.




  From:   m...@slc.bc.ca (J. McRee Elrod)   
 


  To: dtoma...@nypl.org 



  Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca  



  Date:   04/11/2011 12:33 PM   



  Subject:Re: [RDA-L] FRBR  








Debirah Tomares said:
Her vision includes librarians facilitating discovery of soft
sources of information (her words), as opposed to authoritative [i.e.,
published] sources. In doing so, she said (roughly paraphrasing): Those
sources all have records in OCLC anyway ...

Of the special libraries for which we catalogue, up to 50% of
materials  do not have derviced records.  for aggrigators about 50%,
and  for electronic publishers, none do.  What she says may apply to
Pocunkville Public, but not to major and specilized collections.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mike Tribby]

It may be simplistic (but hey! that's what I do!), but I think the competing 
views of RDA's potential benefits and ultimate utility split along the lines of 
what kind of libraries are being discussed and what kind of libraries the 
individuals doing the discussing inhabit. With a few significant and voluble 
exceptions, that is.




Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kathleen Lamantia]

Well, you can't stop there, Mike.

Which kinds of libraries favor which, etc.?

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library 
service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR 
rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 


-Original Message-
From: Mike Tribby [mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:44 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

It may be simplistic (but hey! that's what I do!), but I think the competing 
views of RDA's potential benefits and ultimate utility split along the lines of 
what kind of libraries are being discussed and what kind of libraries the 
individuals doing the discussing inhabit. With a few significant and voluble 
exceptions, that is.




Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Aleta Copeland]

snip

Earlier today I saw the PCC Discussion Paper on RDA implementation. Perhaps
this message would be an appropriate response. That position paper seems
oblivious to the current 'real' environment.

snip

Mary,

Where did you see this report?  Do you have a link to it?

Thanks,

Aleta

 

**

**

Aleta Copeland, MLS

Head of Technical Services

Ouachita Parish Public Library

1800 Stubbs Ave.

Monroe, LA 71201

318-327-1490 ex. 3015

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Lasater, Mary Charles
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:26 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 

I also agree. 

 

Mary Charles Lasater

Authorities Coordinator

Vanderbilt University 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Guy Vernon Frost
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:19 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 

I concur. very nice summation. Change needs to occur, but it seems to me
it's going in the wrong direction too.

 

Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S 

Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing 

Associate Professor of Library Science 

Odum Library, Valdosta State University

Valdosta, GA 31698-0150  Depository 0125 

229-259-5060 ; FAX 229-333-5862

gfr...@valdosta.edu

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 

Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which it
is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the fact
that RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to each
bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more discouraged.
Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath.  It desperately
needed to become simpler, more transparent, and more attractive to library
school students, easier for management to understand.  Instead, it seems to
me that the opposite is happening, and at the worst possible time.  It seems
to me that our leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining
to us why what they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to
the ground. 

This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for
twenty years -- not that of my employer.

 

 

 

Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mike Tribby]

Well, you can't stop there, Mike.
Which kinds of libraries favor which, etc.?

To answer Kathleen's perfectly reasonable question and observation in reverse 
order:

I'd rather not say publically at this point in this fascinating discussion 
(though I think a close reading of my previous postings on this and other lists 
might suggest a likely answer).

The heck I can't.



Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Stephen Early]

Having cataloged for nearly 22 years at two institutions, having dealt with 
many changes involving bibliographic utility and online cataloging software 
upgrades, and having conversed casually with actual participants in the RDA 
test, I am cautiously optimistic: if RDA is adopted, there will be a learning 
curve, but eventually I will get used it to it. For the profession at large, 
some RDA features will be an improvement, some won't be but will still be 
tolerable, and some features will be prove to be unworkable and will be tweaked 
or changed radically over the next year or five. 

Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545
sea...@crl.edu
CRL website: www.crl.edu
 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:58 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which it 
is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the fact that 
RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to each 
bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more discouraged.  
Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath.  It desperately needed 
to become simpler, more transparent, and more attractive to library school 
students, easier for management to understand.  Instead, it seems to me that 
the opposite is happening, and at the worst possible time.  It seems to me that 
our leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining to us why what 
they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to the ground. 
This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for twenty 
years -- not that of my employer.
 
 
 
Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Diane I. Hillmann]

 Megan:

I think you have it absolutely right.

One of our big problems with making a transition to RDA is that we do 
not yet have tools to manage our data using RDA, and so it's difficult 
to visualize how the different approach to data will change what 
catalogers do (and what libraries do, which is part of the issue).


We will need different skills to do the work (not just cataloging, but 
planning, training, etc.), and a better basic understanding of what's 
going on outside of libraries in regards to bibliographic data.  Sadly, 
those who see only the downside of this change are not seeing the 
opportunities for personal and professional growth that come along with 
it, though clearly you do!


Regards,
Diane

On 4/11/11 12:29 PM, Megan Curran wrote:
As a newer librarian, I have a bit of a different point-of-view when 
it comes to RDA. It seems like the goal of RDA is to bring libraries 
into web-based data description in a real way. I don't think 
cataloging should necessarily be easier for librarians to perform, but 
it should provide information that is more easily retrievable and 
meets the needs and heightened expectations of our patrons. So if RDA 
makes cataloging more difficult (I'm not sure if that's the case, I 
think once catalogers master the new rules it'll just become the new 
routine), isn't that a good reason why we need skilled catalogers to 
perform the work? Sounds like job security to me. There's no way to 
predict the future so I'm not saying 100% that that's how it will 
shake out, but I think it behooves us to adapt as a profession to the 
current and possible future information environments.
If any of you are attending the Medical Library Association meeting in 
Minneapolis next month, I'll be doing a presentation on explaining the 
broad concepts of RDA and FRBR to technical services staff and 
non-technical services librarians, if you'd like to come listen.

Thanks,
Megan Curran
Head of Metadata  Content Management
Norris Medical Library
University of Southern California
2003 Zonal Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90089-9130
megan...@usc.edu mailto:megan...@usc.edu
323-442-1134


 Guy Vernon Frost gfr...@valdosta.edu 4/11/2011 9:19 AM 

I concur… very nice summation. Change needs to occur, but it seems to 
me it’s going in the wrong direction too.


Guy Frost, B.M.E., M.M.E., M.L.S., Ed.S

Catalog Librarian/Facilitator of Technical Processing

Associate Professor of Library Science

Odum Library, Valdosta State University

Valdosta, GA 31698-0150  Depository 0125

229-259-5060 ; FAX 229-333-5862

gfr...@valdosta.edu mailto:gfr...@valdosta.edu

*From:* Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *Billie Hackney

*Sent:* Monday, April 11, 2011 11:58 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand 
(which it is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it 
is), and the fact that RDA will actually increase the amount of work 
we have to do to each bibliographic record (which it does), I get more 
and more discouraged.  Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for 
breath.  It desperately needed to become simpler, more transparent, 
and more attractive to library school students, easier for management 
to understand.  Instead, it seems to me that the opposite is 
happening, and at the worst possible time.  It seems to me that our 
leaders are taking us over a cliff, and they keep explaining to us why 
what they're doing is very, very important, as we're plummeting to the 
ground.


This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for 
twenty years -- not that of my employer.


Billie Hackney
Senior Monograph Cataloger
Getty Research Institute
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
(310) 440-7616
bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mark Ehlert]

Aleta Copeland acopel...@oplib.org wrote:
 Earlier today I saw the PCC Discussion Paper on RDA implementation. Perhaps
 this message would be an appropriate response. That position paper seems
 oblivious to the current ‘real’ environment.

 Where did you see this report?  Do you have a link to it?

Likely this:

  http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/PoCo-RDA-Discussion-Paper040511.pdf

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
Bibliographic  Technical      15 Andersen Library
  Services (BATS) Unit        222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
http://www.minitex.umn.edu/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Laurence S. Creider]

Your comments are very interesting, but I have to wonder if there are not
additional reasons.  I was a copy cataloger for two years before I went to
library school in 1981, where the cataloging course consisted of a glossed
reading of AACR2, plus some wonderful optional readings and a few
exercises.  I found that AACR2 made great sense and was a tremendous
improvement on previous cataloging, but part of that was because my mind
was essentially a tabula rasa when I took the course (I had seen a lot of
cataloging of course but had been warned away from the rules before I went
to get my MLS).  In my first professional job, I had wonderful training. 
My reviser had been trained on the Red book, but she had made a solid
adaptation to the new code, even though some of the problems were apparent
to her and others (our Arabic cataloger was not pleased with AACR2 chapter
22).

I think RDA will be harder for catalogers to adapt to because it is not
really a cataloging code.  We will be doing something different, something
whose shape is still becoming apparent.  But Megan Curran is right; the
effort should be made if the result will be better discovery and access
for our users.

FRBR is a different matter.  Even with its faults (the edition vs.
manifestation issue, for example), I do think it is fairly intuitive for
users as well as catalogers.  The questions start when one is actually
trying to think through the details for a particular resource that is
being cataloged. Even so, I think FRBR and WEMI are great improvements
over their predecessors, just as the new Statement of International
Cataloguing Principles is a great improvement over the Paris Principles.


-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu

On Mon, April 11, 2011 10:30 am, Harden, Jean wrote:
 My experience leads me to the opposite conclusion. For people who don't
 already know how to catalog, much of RDA *is* simpler, more transparent,
 and so forth than AACR2. It's only those of us who have been using AACR2
 for years that have so much trouble grasping the new rules.
 In my job I teach a steady stream of young catalogers, and I was also in
 the RDA test. Teaching AACR2 while testing RDA gave me a daily
 side-by-side comparison. I have found that new catalogers very often
 stumble into doing descriptive cataloging right according to RDA when
 they come to the end of their AACR2 knowledge.
 In formal classes, I have taught FRBR for at least a couple of years now.
 I find that people without previous cataloging experience understand the
 basics of FRBR within about half an hour. Then we do a couple more hours
 of exercises to cement the concepts (take books, scores, recordings,
 videos, etc. from the collection and make cards for the work, expression,
 manifestation, item, related works, responsible persons, and whatever else
 suits the particular group of students, putting these cards on the
 relevant spot on a labeled table or even floor). I haven't yet had a
 student fail to get a firm grasp on these basic ideas within one
 graduate-length class session.
 Jean
 Jean Harden
 Music Catalog Librarian
 Libraries
 University of North Texas
 1155 Union Circle #305190
 Denton, TX  76203-5017
 jean.har...@unt.edu
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Billie Hackney
 Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:58 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 Every time I see a discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which
 it is), how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the
 fact that RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do to
 each bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and more
 discouraged.  Cataloging as a profession has been gasping for breath.  It
 desperately needed to become simpler, more transparent, and more
 attractive to library school students, easier for management to
 understand.  Instead, it seems to me that the opposite is happening, and
 at the worst possible time.  It seems to me that our leaders are taking us
 over a cliff, and they keep explaining to us why what they're doing is
 very, very important, as we're plummeting to the ground.
 This is my own personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for
 twenty years -- not that of my employer.



 Billie Hackney
 Senior Monograph Cataloger
 Getty Research Institute
 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100
 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
 (310) 440-7616
 bhack...@getty.edumailto:bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Weinheimer Jim]

Harden, Jean wrote:
snip
My experience leads me to the opposite conclusion. For people who don’t already 
know how to catalog, much of RDA *is* simpler, more transparent, and so forth 
than AACR2. It’s only those of us who have been using AACR2 for years that have 
so much trouble grasping the new rules.
In my job I teach a steady stream of young catalogers, and I was also in the 
RDA test. Teaching AACR2 while testing RDA gave me a daily side-by-side 
comparison. I have found that new catalogers very often stumble into doing 
descriptive cataloging “right” according to RDA when they come to the end of 
their AACR2 knowledge.
In formal classes, I have taught FRBR for at least a couple of years now. I 
find that people without previous cataloging experience understand the basics 
of FRBR within about half an hour. Then we do a couple more hours of exercises 
to cement the concepts (take books, scores, recordings, videos, etc. from the 
collection and make cards for the work, expression, manifestation, item, 
related works, responsible persons, and whatever else suits the particular 
group of students, putting these cards on the relevant spot on a labeled table 
or even floor). I haven’t yet had a student fail to get a firm grasp on these 
basic ideas within one graduate-length class session.
/snip

I have no doubt that experienced catalogers can learn RDA. After all, the final 
product is not all that different from what we do now. The problem for 
experienced catalogers is to master a new set of tools that are very expensive 
in comparison to what we had before. Catalogers can learn to deal with all of 
this, of course. The question is: are the (so-called) advantages worth the 
disadvantages? Is the final product worth the cost, especially in these 
exceedingly difficult economic times? 

We can each have our own opinions (I haven't made my own much of a secret) but 
when it comes down to it, there is going to have to be an answer: is it worth 
the cost? And the answer will be very simple: either Yes or No. How many of our 
CFOs will say yes? No matter what some may think, RDA is not unstoppable and 
can be checked at many points along the way, as I am sure it will be. As a 
result, one of the unavoidable consequences of RDA, whether people like it or 
not, will be a split in the library metadata community.  

We have seen promises and presentations with incredible graphics that have made 
me gasp for breath, but I have found it all very short on specifics. For 
example: where is the money supposed to come from for this training? What are 
libraries supposed to give up? Or, are libraries expected to get additional 
funding for all of it? (Ha!) Also, more than anything else, I think it's clear 
that catalogers need help: substantial help, Is there any hard evidence (other 
than anecdotal) that anybody outside of libraries (and especially 
Anglo-American libraries) are going to switch over to RDA when they never did 
with AACR2? 

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kevin M. Randall]

Mary Charles Lasater wrote:

 Earlier today I saw the PCC Discussion Paper on RDA
 implementation. [...] That
 position paper seems oblivious to the current 'real' environment.

Mary, could you give some specific reasons why you say that about the
position paper?  To me it seems like it couldn't be any clearer that it is
attempting to address what is, now, the real environment.  While I have
some reservations about 3 of the 12 specific implications under PCC Hybrid
Environment, I also see (and believe) the very large for discussion
watermark.  I have no doubt at all that the real environment will be a
significant factor in OpCo discussion next month, because the OpCo
representatives work in, and represent, real cataloging agencies.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: k...@northwestern.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Karen Coyle]

Quoting Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu:


I have no doubt that experienced catalogers can learn RDA. After  
all, the final product is not all that different from what we do  
now. The problem for experienced catalogers is to master a new set  
of tools that are very expensive in comparison to what we had  
before. Catalogers can learn to deal with all of this, of course.  
The question is: are the (so-called) advantages worth the  
disadvantages? Is the final product worth the cost, especially in  
these exceedingly difficult economic times?


I was on a panel last week with Chris Cronin from U Chicago libraries  
where he spoke about their experience using RDA. He was asked about  
cost and his answer was that there were not added costs. In fact, the  
library cataloged the same number of items during the time of the test  
(and they did them ALL in RDA) even though the catalogers had to fill  
out a survey for every item they cataloged. (Chris is undoubtedly on  
this list, or his staff are, so please correct me if I get any of this  
wrong.)




We can each have our own opinions (I haven't made my own much of a  
secret) but when it comes down to it, there is going to have to be  
an answer: is it worth the cost? And the answer will be very simple:  
either Yes or No. How many of our CFOs will say yes?


No one should say yes or no without information to back it up (we are  
an information profession, after all). The report on the testing will  
probably answer these questions about how hard it is to learn RDA and  
what it costs to catalog in RDA. Meanwhile, speculation without facts  
isn't terribly useful. I think about how much of the time used up in  
this debate couldn't have been better spent gathering actual  
information.


kc


No matter what some may think, RDA is not unstoppable and can be  
checked at many points along the way, as I am sure it will be. As a  
result, one of the unavoidable consequences of RDA, whether people  
like it or not, will be a split in the library metadata community.


We have seen promises and presentations with incredible graphics  
that have made me gasp for breath, but I have found it all very  
short on specifics. For example: where is the money supposed to come  
from for this training? What are libraries supposed to give up? Or,  
are libraries expected to get additional funding for all of it?  
(Ha!) Also, more than anything else, I think it's clear that  
catalogers need help: substantial help, Is there any hard evidence  
(other than anecdotal) that anybody outside of libraries (and  
especially Anglo-American libraries) are going to switch over to RDA  
when they never did with AACR2?


James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/




--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mike Tribby]

Meanwhile, speculation without facts isn't terribly useful. I think about how 
much of the time used up in this debate couldn't have been better spent 
gathering actual information.

Well, sure, but seeing as how we're waiting on the U.S. national libraries to 
come to a decision anyway it's hard to turn off speculation. On Karen's broader 
point about the discussion, though, it seems to me as if we've been talking 
past each other for some time now. A decision, regardless of which way it goes, 
seems like the only thing of much tangible use left to be determined. Minds 
haven't changed much one way or the other in a good long time, or so it would 
seem from the online discussion.




Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Lasater, Mary Charles]

Kevin,

I agree with Laurence Creider There is a near total disconnect between the 
discussion and the conclusion. I couldn't even figure out how to respond to 
it. 

I am not 'anti' RDA, but it is clear that RDA is not finished (subjects???) and 
the Toolkit is very hard to use. Finally the TEST and how it was carried out 
was a disaster that has catalogers acting like Democrats and Republicans who 
can agree on nothing. I think we are being pressured to implement something 
that is not ready and that we are not ready to implement. 

I have lots of respect for all the work that has gone into RDA and for those 
that invested so much time. I don't want to see all the effort wasted, nor do I 
want to see catalogers replaced by ??? because of a premature decision to 
implement. 

Mary Charles

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kevin M. Randall
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:03 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Mary Charles Lasater wrote:

 Earlier today I saw the PCC Discussion Paper on RDA
 implementation. [...] That
 position paper seems oblivious to the current 'real' environment.

Mary, could you give some specific reasons why you say that about the
position paper?  To me it seems like it couldn't be any clearer that it is
attempting to address what is, now, the real environment.  While I have
some reservations about 3 of the 12 specific implications under PCC Hybrid
Environment, I also see (and believe) the very large for discussion
watermark.  I have no doubt at all that the real environment will be a
significant factor in OpCo discussion next month, because the OpCo
representatives work in, and represent, real cataloging agencies.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: k...@northwestern.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[J. McRee Elrod]

Deborah Tomares said:

Those sources all have records in OCLC anyway ...

P.S. How does she think those recores *get* into OCLC?  A cataloguer
creates them!

Deborah, I realize this was not your opinion, widely shared though it
be.  You reported it well.

Yes, I do suspect steam is coming out of my ears!


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[J. McRee Elrod]

Megan Curran said:

It seems like the goal of RDA is to bring libraries into web-based 
data description in a real way.
 
Coding and ILS development would take us into being web-based,
not cataloguing rule changes, with rare exceptions.

I do not see in the budgets of our clients the ILSs which would be 
required to take advantage of, for example, 7XX$i values expressing
relationships.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Megan Curran]

I do not see in the budgets of our clients the ILSs which would be 
required to take advantage of, for example, 7XX$i values expressing
relationships.
 
I'd say that's a failing of the ILS marketplace, not RDA. I think the ILSs are 
just waiting for RDA to be finalized before rolling out new iterations that can 
take advantage of the relational properties. I mean, the technology already 
exists, as we can see on the likes of Amazon (You might also like...). The 
company or companies who are the first out of the gate with an affordable ILS 
that can take advantage of these new properties are going to rule the 
marketplace. I heard the latest OCLC venture is the closest out there right 
now... I was impressed with the abilities of Williamette's catalog 
http://library.willamette.edu/  which I was shown by a OCLC sales rep, I 
personally haven't seen a better one yet, but I still need to investigate 
further for myself and for my library. It's going to be a long process for us 
to make a decision.
 
I just feel like if our catalogs are on the web, and most of what we catalog is 
in the web environment, then the rules should be made for that environment. 
Using coding tricks and discovery layers to force paper-based cataloging rules 
into a web environment amounts to putting lipstick on a pig. The data display 
can only be as good as the data underneath, and the data should be relevant to 
the environment in which it's processed.
 
I understand the reticence of veteran catalogers. Unlike other areas of 
librarianship, the rules have stayed relatively static and continued working 
for a long time. I think the RDA skepticism is good, because the discussion 
will result in a better set of standards in the long run. But I think RDA has a 
lot of potential, I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out in the day to 
day. 
 
- Megan Curran

 J. McRee Elrod m...@slc.bc.ca 4/11/2011 12:35 PM 
Megan Curran said:

It seems like the goal of RDA is to bring libraries into web-based 
data description in a real way.

Coding and ILS development would take us into being web-based,
not cataloguing rule changes, with rare exceptions.

I do not see in the budgets of our clients the ILSs which would be 
required to take advantage of, for example, 7XX$i values expressing
relationships.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Weinheimer Jim]

Megan Curran wrote:
snip
I just feel like if our catalogs are on the web, and most of what we catalog is 
in the web environment, then the rules should be made for that environment. 
Using coding tricks and discovery layers to force paper-based cataloging rules 
into a web environment amounts to putting lipstick on a pig. The data display 
can only be as good as the data underneath, and the data should be relevant to 
the environment in which it's processed.

I understand the reticence of veteran catalogers. Unlike other areas of 
librarianship, the rules have stayed relatively static and continued working 
for a long time. I think the RDA skepticism is good, because the discussion 
will result in a better set of standards in the long run. But I think RDA has a 
lot of potential, I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out in the day to 
day.
/snip

As one of those veteran catalogers, I honestly do not see how the changes in 
RDA have a lot of potential. Which changes do you have in mind? The 
abbreviations? The changes in the headings of the Bible? The lack of the $b in 
titles? 

While the potential changes with FRBR would be noticeable to the public because 
of different displays, I truly do not see how the changes with RDA will even be 
noticed by our public. What will they notice first? It seems to me that if 
people really do not like our catalogs as they are today, it is RDA that will 
be the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig.

There are many, many problems with our library catalogs and they should not be 
ignored. Very few of those problems are with the rules--it's how the catalog 
works in an environment that is not a card catalog. This should have been 
discussed a *long* time ago, but it wasn't. Now, it's coming back to haunt us. 

Our rules have always been made for non-changing, physical items: books, 
serials, scores, recordings, maps, etc. but in the online environment, any 
record a catalog creates may not describe the remote resource just 5 minutes 
after it was created. Remote-accessed, dynamic resources are substantially 
different from printed items and special rules should be made for those 
resources. So far as I know, the book as we know it may become far less 
important in our society fairly soon (lots of people are saying that!), and 
other physical items may follow fairly quickly. Are librarians only interested 
in physical items that are arranged on shelves? I hope not!

There is a place for librarians and people who describe and organize all of 
these resources, I am sure. But where is that place? How do they (we) remain 
relevant in such a society?

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mike Tribby]

Not all libraries perceive the same needs as other libraries. If the ILSs are 
just waiting for RDA to be finalized before rolling out new iterations that can 
take advantage of the relational properties then why haven't they already 
rolled out ILSs that feature technology [which] already exists, as we can see 
on the likes of Amazon? For instance, where is the ILS software that routinely 
suggests, after I type in Minn, Minnesota, or Minnie Minoso, or Minnie 
Mouse for that matter? (I sincerely hope that some listmembers have this 
feature in their ILS or cataloging software, BTW, as it does seem like an 
obvious imporvement). As I mentioned a few months ago, our head of IT cautioned 
us that we might not want to get rid of 10-digit ISBN capabilities in our 
systems because we still have customers whose ILSs can't handle the 13-digit 
ISBNs.

ILS vendors have been slow to add a lot of features over the years. How many 
years did it take before they stopped using stopwords and started reading 
non-filer indicators?



Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mark Ehlert]

Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu wrote:
Which changes do you have in mind? ... The lack of the $b in titles?

Huh?

-- 
Mark K. Ehlert                 Minitex
Coordinator                    University of Minnesota
Bibliographic  Technical      15 Andersen Library
  Services (BATS) Unit        222 21st Avenue South
Phone: 612-624-0805            Minneapolis, MN 55455-0439
http://www.minitex.umn.edu/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Gary L. Strawn]

At 03:34 PM 4/11/2011, Mike Tribby wrote:
Not all libraries perceive the same needs as other libraries. If 
the ILSs are just waiting for RDA to be finalized before rolling 
out new iterations that can take advantage of the relational 
properties then why haven't they already rolled out ILSs that 
feature technology [which] already exists, as we can see on the 
likes of Amazon?


Our current ILS (Voyager) doesn't even take full advantage of the 
coding in authority 4XX/5XX subfield $w, which has been around since 
the 1970s...



Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: mrsm...@northwestern.edu   voice: 847/491-2788--now even 
newer!   fax: 847/491-8306

Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mike Tribby]

The questions above indicate that the questioner is missing the point of RDA 
entirely.

Of course they do. Has this list outlived its usefulness?


Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[mmontalvo]

I agree. We are swimming against the tide.

Marilyn Montalvo
Head Technical Services Dept.
Library System
University of
Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus

 Every time I see a
discussion about how hard FRBR is to understand (which
 it is),
how difficult the RDA Toolkit is to use (which it is), and the

fact that RDA will actually increase the amount of work we have to do
to
 each bibliographic record (which it does), I get more and
more
 discouraged.  Cataloging as a profession has been gasping
for breath.  It
 desperately needed to become simpler, more
transparent, and more
 attractive to library school students,
easier for management to
 understand.  Instead, it seems to me
that the opposite is happening, and
 at the worst possible time. 
It seems to me that our leaders are taking us
 over a cliff, and
they keep explaining to us why what they're doing is
 very, very
important, as we're plummeting to the ground.
 This is my own
personal opinion as someone who has been cataloging for
 twenty
years -- not that of my employer.
 
 
 
 Billie Hackney
 Senior Monograph Cataloger
 Getty
Research Institute
 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90049-1688
 (310) 440-7616

bhack...@getty.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Dan Matei]

-Original Message-
From: Brenndorfer, Thomas tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 18:11:53 -0400

 world has not stopped with FRBR. There's FRBRoo for example, which integrates 
 museum data with library data as
 outlined in FRBR, and so expands FRBR significantly with temporal entities:
 (http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/wgfrbr/FRBRoo_V9.1_PR.pdf). Data models 
 doesn't suddenly cancel each other out or
 make their basis invalid-- extensions and modifications and integration and 
 mutual enrichment should be welcome.

The fresher edition (v.1.0.1) 
http://cidoc-crm.org/docs/frbr_oo/frbr_docs/FRBRoo_V1.0.1.pdf.

Dan

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Magdalena Svanberg]

Meeting is cancelled.
-Original Message
-
From: Gene Fieg
Sent:  2011/04/08, 00:52 
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Dan Matei]

 
 This reminds me of that moment: how hundreds of years worth 
 of experience is on this list? And there is no agreement on 
 something like *what is a work*?! How can we ever hope for 
 any kind of consistency? Of course it goes without saying 
 that with no consistency, everyone will be fated to stay on 
 that merry-go-round of fixing everybody else's records.

However, dear Jim...

I'm afraid we tend to dramatise the edge cases.

87.34% of the users will perfectly understand when you state that an article is 
about Hamlet, the
play or when you state that Mahler composed Das Klagende Lied or when you 
state that (say) The
Falkner Estate owns the copyright on Absalom, Absalom !.

So, the (abstract) idea of a work is quite common. And, as John Myers just 
reminded us, you
(catalogers) used it extensively in the uniform titles. For ages, he said.


Dan

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Jakob Voss]

Jim Weinheimer wrote:


This reminds me of that moment: how hundreds of years worth of
experience is on this list? And there is no agreement on something
like *what is a work*?! How can we ever hope for any kind of
consistency? Of course it goes without saying that with no
consistency, everyone will be fated to stay on that merry-go-round

 of fixing everybody else's records.

Sure, why not? The two large authority files of works that I trust most 
are LibraryThing and Wikipedia. Both value benefit for the user more 
than consistency and both can be edited to merge and split records about 
single works [*]. There is no precise definition of a work because a 
work is what people perceive as work. So better listen to the people! 
Sure there are some general guidelines and rules. Also in LibraryThing 
and Wikipedia. But these guidelines and rules are fluid as well. 
Sometimes continuous democracy in contrast to rigid control is also good 
for cataloging.


Jakob

[*] This requires a version control system to track all changes. I 
wonder why version control for cataloging records is not standard yet. 
Having version control is the kind of requirement that should have been 
introduced with RDA instead of yet another set of fixed rules and 
specifications.


--
Jakob Voß jakob.v...@gbv.de, skype: nichtich
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Nicky Ransom]

I am fairly new to the cataloguing world  so I may be lacking in understanding, 
but it seems to me that the full capabilities of the FRBR model will not be 
realised until we move away from flat databases to something that will cater 
for the full hierarchical structure of FRBR. Until (or if) that happens, the 
W-E-M-I model will not have a great impact on how we catalogue, and may 
therefore not make much difference to the end user in the short term. 

Nicky

Nicky Ransom
Data Quality Manager  Cataloguer
The Library
 
University for the Creative Arts
Falkner Road
Farnham
Surrey GU9 7DS
 
Tel: 01252 892739
nran...@ucreative.ac.uk
 
www.ucreative.ac.uk 
 
One of Europe's leading arts and design institutions, the University for the 
Creative Arts builds on a proud tradition of creative arts education spanning 
150 years. Our campuses at Canterbury, Epsom, Farnham, Maidstone and Rochester 
are home to more than 7,000 students from more than 70 countries studying on 
courses in art, design, architecture, media and communications. 
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Dan Matei
Sent: 08 April 2011 08:59
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 
 This reminds me of that moment: how hundreds of years worth 
 of experience is on this list? And there is no agreement on 
 something like *what is a work*?! How can we ever hope for 
 any kind of consistency? Of course it goes without saying 
 that with no consistency, everyone will be fated to stay on 
 that merry-go-round of fixing everybody else's records.

However, dear Jim...

I'm afraid we tend to dramatise the edge cases.

87.34% of the users will perfectly understand when you state that an article is 
about Hamlet, the
play or when you state that Mahler composed Das Klagende Lied or when you 
state that (say) The
Falkner Estate owns the copyright on Absalom, Absalom !.

So, the (abstract) idea of a work is quite common. And, as John Myers just 
reminded us, you
(catalogers) used it extensively in the uniform titles. For ages, he said.


Dan

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[hecain]

Jim, I think you're over-thinking it. Confronted with a new book,  
don't we examine it and check our favorite database(s) to verify  
whether it's a new work or a version of an existing work?  If new, we  
just treat it at the manifestation level.  Under the  
currently-anticipated regime for implementing RDA (until we are  
engaged in a different scenario, for which systems and services don't  
yet exist on any significant global scale) we'll do the same.  Having  
accounted for the manifestation and its content, then it's done.  And  
if it's a version, we identify of what, and in what kind of  
relationship and what features and agents (editors, translators,  
illustrators, and so on) distinguish it as an expression.


Granted the reality will sometimes be complex; but for many instances  
it's just an extension of what we're already doing -- with the  
advantage for the future that when the same work occurs, and/or the  
same distinguishing features and relationships, we can reuse that  
work; when there are sytems to enable us to do it without copying and  
editing from a previous bibliographic record, as we do now.


Hal Cain
Melbourne, Australia
hec...@dml.vic.edu.au

Quoting Weinheimer Jim j.weinhei...@aur.edu:


Dan Matei wrote:
snip
I'm afraid we tend to dramatise the edge cases.

87.34% of the users will perfectly understand when you state that an  
article is about Hamlet, the
play or when you state that Mahler composed Das Klagende Lied or  
when you state that (say) The

Falkner Estate owns the copyright on Absalom, Absalom !.

So, the (abstract) idea of a work is quite common. And, as John  
Myers just reminded us, you

(catalogers) used it extensively in the uniform titles. For ages, he said.
/snip

I shall reply that applying this kind of abstract reasoning is one  
thing, but I am thinking of the cataloger who is sitting at the  
desk, perhaps alone, and *has to make the decisions* what is the  
work, expression and so on. Doing these things in practice will be  
something completely different from thinking about it abstractly,  
just as it was (and still is) in the determination of deciding which  
subject heading to use: Russia, Soviet Union, Former Soviet  
republics (if not all of them!). And in the back of the cataloger's  
mind is the certainty that any mistake will be pounced on!


In the proposed FRBR universe, a mess-up on a work or expression  
will obviously have consequences, and I suspect that in such a  
linked system, the consequences could be far greater than mistakes  
today. While in theory, an edit to a work record should  
automatically be replicated in all related expressions and  
manifestations, a completely wrong work record will have unforeseen  
consequences since all expressions and manifestations will be built  
on the information in the work record. If anything, it seems that  
consistency will be more important in the FRBR linked-data universe  
than it is today.


The only consolation is that for now RDA still uses the same  
methods, as Bernhard mentions, and we will keep on making  
manifestation records.


James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/





This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Weinheimer Jim]

Hal Cain wrote:
snip
Jim, I think you're over-thinking it. Confronted with a new book,
don't we examine it and check our favorite database(s) to verify
whether it's a new work or a version of an existing work?  If new, we
just treat it at the manifestation level.  Under the
currently-anticipated regime for implementing RDA (until we are
engaged in a different scenario, for which systems and services don't
yet exist on any significant global scale) we'll do the same.  Having
accounted for the manifestation and its content, then it's done.
/snip

You're right Hal. For the moment with the few changes that RDA actually 
implements, we will be doing essentially the same thing as we are doing today: 
cataloging manifestations and dealing with works and expressions only when we 
need to. The changes of RDA, as I have mentioned so many times before, are such 
that our patrons most probably won't even notice any changes at all. (This is 
why I say that RDA changes are only faux-changes, i.e. it changes only 
cataloger's work, is not worth the effort, blah, blah blah, when what we 
*sorely need* are changes in other areas of the catalog and cataloging, but 
those are different topics)

However, when (not if) linked data is implemented there will be a need for the 
cataloger to determine these issues. RDA is almost finalized, and it strikes me 
that there is such difficulty on determining something as basic as: what is a 
work! (I'm having trouble too, by the way!) And this while everybody seems to 
agree that it is vital to determine WEMI now.

Somehow, things are not adding up. The only consolation is that with MARC 
format, especially in its bizarre ISO2709 version, none of it matters for the 
moment.

But that is quite an odd sort of consolation!

James L. Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kathleen Lamantia]

Wait, wait!

I thought the entire purpose of FRBR/RDA was to collocate everything together 
so that patrons would see an entity-relationship display... therefore the 
book and the movie are only different expressions of the same work.  So 
now, this is NOT the case?

Please excuse me while I go in a closet and scream!

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library 
service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR 
rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:19 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

In conventional cataloging practice, and in what is suggested by 
FRBR/RDA as I understand it... no, it doesn't really matter. A movie 
version is a different work.

I think an argument could be made that a _very simple_ movie version, 
that is really just video of a bunch of actors sitting around a table 
doing a reading of the _exact_ text of the novel --- should be treated 
as the same work to be consistent --  If an audio-book of the exact text 
is considered the same work -- is it?

But I'm not sure about that, and I think that, otherwise, no, 
conventional practice is to consider the movie version a different work. 
Conventional practice, as represented by legacy cataloging and 
FRBR/RDA's suggestions is NOT to have catalogers considering how much 
the movie differs from the book, and figuring out exactly how much is 
too much.[Consider again, in AACR2 -- is the main entry (not an 
added entry) on a film version of Pride and Prejudice _ever_ Jane 
Austen? If it sometimes is, that might be a case where it is indeed 
being modelled as the same work. I don't think this is ever done? But 
I'm not a cataloger.]

It's not an unreasonable thing to suggest, but it's not conventional 
practice.  My main point is that it's not about which choice is closer 
to reality of whether two things are the same work or not. There kind 
of isn't a reality of that, there isn't an actual work we can go 
touch and open up and see.  It's just about our modelling choices, and 
in order to share our data we need to do this somewhat consistently. 
It's totally fine to think it would be _better_ (more useful) if the 
convention were different -- just like you could disagree with what, 
say, AACR2 or other legacy cataloging practice dictated about when to 
use the same title authority record and when to make a different one.  
But if you want to be able to share your authority records and linked 
bibs cooperatively, you've got to try to make choices consistent with 
everyone else, even if you think a different choice would be more useful.

On 4/7/2011 4:55 PM, Mark Rose wrote:
 Wouldn't the determining factor of whether a movie version of Pride and 
 Prejudice shared the same work as the novelization depend on the the intent 
 of the expression as a motion picture of the novel or as a retelling? If the 
 movie took enough liberties with the text, it might be a different work, but 
 if it were an almost verbatim representation of the novel then it might be 
 the same work. Another example might be whether the film Prospero's Books 
 share the same work as the RSC film production of The Tempest? The text is 
 very similar in each version.

 What about remakes then? For example, do the original film version of Arthur 
 and the 2011 remake of the film Arthur share the work Arthur or because 
 there is substantial deviation in text do we view it as a separate work.

 The whole notion of Work in FRBR seems unnecessary in my view. We don't deal 
 in Platonic ideals of what a work is but in actual productions, the 
 physicality of the work, i.e. expression down to item.

 Mark Rose, B.A.Hons., M.I.St.
 Librarian and Information Systems Manager
 ICURR = Cirur
 mr...@icurr.org
 (647) 345-7004



 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access on 
 behalf of Jonathan Rochkind
 Sent: Thu 4/7/2011 4:35 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 The 'conventional' modelling choice right now is to call the film version of 
 Pride and Prejudice a different (creative) 'work' than the novel, and the 
 film script yet different again.

 This is a somewhat arbitrary choice -- when modelling reality, we have to 
 make choices on how to 'summarize' reality in our modelled data, in the most 
 useful ways for our use cases. It is my opinion that neither choice is 
 neccesarily more 'right', any model is neccesarily a summarized 'lossy 
 encoding' of reality.

 In this case, that choice is arguably most consistent with legacy cataloging 
 practice, where

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Peter Schouten]

Ask yourself: is the movie a valid alternative to the book? Is the creator of 
the movie the same as the creator of the book (if the answer is no to either, 
it can't be a work).

The purpose of FRBR has never been to put related works together in one 
hiërarchy, but the works will of course be related by association (which 
currently they often are not).

Peter Schouten
Ingressus


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] Namens Kathleen Lamantia
Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2011 14:41
Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Wait, wait!

I thought the entire purpose of FRBR/RDA was to collocate everything together 
so that patrons would see an entity-relationship display... therefore the 
book and the movie are only different expressions of the same work.  So 
now, this is NOT the case?

Please excuse me while I go in a closet and scream!

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community The Stark County 
District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library service, is one 
of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR rating, and is a 
Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:19 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

In conventional cataloging practice, and in what is suggested by FRBR/RDA as I 
understand it... no, it doesn't really matter. A movie version is a different 
work.

I think an argument could be made that a _very simple_ movie version, that is 
really just video of a bunch of actors sitting around a table doing a reading 
of the _exact_ text of the novel --- should be treated as the same work to be 
consistent --  If an audio-book of the exact text is considered the same work 
-- is it?

But I'm not sure about that, and I think that, otherwise, no, conventional 
practice is to consider the movie version a different work. 
Conventional practice, as represented by legacy cataloging and FRBR/RDA's 
suggestions is NOT to have catalogers considering how much the movie differs 
from the book, and figuring out exactly how much is 
too much.[Consider again, in AACR2 -- is the main entry (not an 
added entry) on a film version of Pride and Prejudice _ever_ Jane Austen? If it 
sometimes is, that might be a case where it is indeed being modelled as the 
same work. I don't think this is ever done? But I'm not a cataloger.]

It's not an unreasonable thing to suggest, but it's not conventional practice.  
My main point is that it's not about which choice is closer to reality of 
whether two things are the same work or not. There kind of isn't a reality of 
that, there isn't an actual work we can go touch and open up and see.  It's 
just about our modelling choices, and in order to share our data we need to do 
this somewhat consistently. 
It's totally fine to think it would be _better_ (more useful) if the convention 
were different -- just like you could disagree with what, say, AACR2 or other 
legacy cataloging practice dictated about when to use the same title authority 
record and when to make a different one.  
But if you want to be able to share your authority records and linked bibs 
cooperatively, you've got to try to make choices consistent with everyone else, 
even if you think a different choice would be more useful.

On 4/7/2011 4:55 PM, Mark Rose wrote:
 Wouldn't the determining factor of whether a movie version of Pride and 
 Prejudice shared the same work as the novelization depend on the the intent 
 of the expression as a motion picture of the novel or as a retelling? If the 
 movie took enough liberties with the text, it might be a different work, but 
 if it were an almost verbatim representation of the novel then it might be 
 the same work. Another example might be whether the film Prospero's Books 
 share the same work as the RSC film production of The Tempest? The text is 
 very similar in each version.

 What about remakes then? For example, do the original film version of Arthur 
 and the 2011 remake of the film Arthur share the work Arthur or because 
 there is substantial deviation in text do we view it as a separate work.

 The whole notion of Work in FRBR seems unnecessary in my view. We don't deal 
 in Platonic ideals of what a work is but in actual productions, the 
 physicality of the work, i.e. expression down to item.

 Mark Rose, B.A.Hons., M.I.St.
 Librarian and Information Systems Manager ICURR = Cirur 
 mr...@icurr.org
 (647) 345-7004



 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
 Access on behalf of Jonathan Rochkind
 Sent: Thu 4/7/2011 4:35 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Dan Matei]

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description 
 and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of 
 Kathleen Lamantia
 Sent: 8 aprilie 2011 15:41


 I thought the entire purpose of FRBR/RDA was to collocate 
 everything together so that patrons would see an 
 entity-relationship display... therefore the book and the 
 movie are only different expressions of the same work.  So 
 now, this is NOT the case?

Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Zefirelli's Romeo and Juliet will be 
lexicographically collocated
(at least written in Roman script :-), However, it is difficult (within the 
Western cultural
conventions)  to say they are the same work.


Dan


Dan Matei, director
Institutul de Memorie Culturala [Institute for Cultural Memory] (CIMEC)
Pia?a Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90
013701 Bucure?ti [Bucharest], Romania
Tel. (+4)21 317 90 72, Fax (+4)21 317 90 64
www.cimec.ro
 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Thomas Meehan]

Hello,

As the person who put the FRBR representation up on the web, I thought 
I'd mention a couple of things about it.


It was intended to accompany introductory internal training for RDA and 
FRBR, so its main intention is to illustrate as clearly and graphically 
as I could how FRBR works and what the benefits might be of a FRBRised 
display.


It is based on the interpretation of FRBR given on the LC site 
mentioned, although I consider it to be correct as far as my own 
understanding of what a work is (i.e. that a novel and a film based on 
it are separate works). I note that the original LC example includes 
Related Work relationships which at least more explicitly tie them together.


The items information that Adam Schiff commented on is added on by me 
and reflects what I thought should happen with FRBR, an approach which 
is not enthusiastically taken up by RDA as I think it should. The item 
information is basically a cut down version of the fields used in Aleph 
items (which would have been familiar to those I was training).


I am more than happy if people want to copy the page and do their own or 
use it elsewhere. The HTML source should I hope be easy to edit, and the 
aqtree3clickable instructions give you what files you need to make it 
work (one .js, one .css, and four .gifs: no editing of these files 
needed at all). I'd be happy to host an alternative too if anyone wants it.


Lastly, my own opinion (based on a lot less research than a lot of 
people here) is that FRBR is too rigid and that a system of defined 
relationships largely independent of WEMI Levels would have been more 
appropriate and useful, especially for the W and E which are causing 
such confusion: e.g. something like isAdaptationOf would sidestep the 
whole argument about films and novels; or isTranslationof; 
isAbridgementOf. A French translation of an English play adapted from a 
German novel based on a Romanian film would be a matter of stringing the 
relationships together rather than worrying what is a work or an 
expression. I could start at the middle of that string and the OPAC 
could give me a number of choices up, down, and sideways.


Anyway,

Tom (@orangeaurochs)

runjuliet wrote:
Here's a nice visual representation of the 
Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found 
via Twitter this morning: 
http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html



*Amanda Raab*



--
Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London
WC1E 6BT

t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Trickey, Keith]

Good point Kathleen!
However, having sat through a number of Harry Potter films with a progressively 
taller Potter fan at my side groaning and mumbling phrases of the general 
form that is so not the way it is in the book - I remain puzzled. For the 
reverse of this - the manga film Howl's moving castle and the fairly minor 
work it acknowledges.

Possibly we should have decided how to lay the table before we started trying 
to eat the food?

Meanwhile the sun is shining on a Friday afternoon in Liverpool!

Enjoy your weekend!

Best wishes

Keith

Keith V. Trickey
Programme Manager
MA / MSc Information  Library Management
Liverpool Business School
Tel: 0151 231 3446




-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia
Sent: 08 April 2011 14:18
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's conception 
(work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would answer your 2nd 
question, is the creator the same? with yes.  As to valid alternatives, that 
seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we are left with a situation in 
which book and movie will or will not be the same work depending on perception 
- and that's no way to run a railroad.


Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library 
service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR 
rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 


-Original Message-
From: Peter Schouten [mailto:pschou...@ingressus.nl] 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 8:47 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Ask yourself: is the movie a valid alternative to the book? Is the creator of 
the movie the same as the creator of the book (if the answer is no to either, 
it can't be a work).

The purpose of FRBR has never been to put related works together in one 
hiërarchy, but the works will of course be related by association (which 
currently they often are not).

Peter Schouten
Ingressus


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] Namens Kathleen Lamantia
Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2011 14:41
Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Wait, wait!

I thought the entire purpose of FRBR/RDA was to collocate everything together 
so that patrons would see an entity-relationship display... therefore the 
book and the movie are only different expressions of the same work.  So 
now, this is NOT the case?

Please excuse me while I go in a closet and scream!

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community The Stark County 
District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library service, is one 
of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR rating, and is a 
Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:19 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

In conventional cataloging practice, and in what is suggested by FRBR/RDA as I 
understand it... no, it doesn't really matter. A movie version is a different 
work.

I think an argument could be made that a _very simple_ movie version, that is 
really just video of a bunch of actors sitting around a table doing a reading 
of the _exact_ text of the novel --- should be treated as the same work to be 
consistent --  If an audio-book of the exact text is considered the same work 
-- is it?

But I'm not sure about that, and I think that, otherwise, no, conventional 
practice is to consider the movie version a different work. 
Conventional practice, as represented by legacy cataloging and FRBR/RDA's 
suggestions is NOT to have catalogers considering how much the movie differs 
from the book, and figuring out exactly how much is 
too much.[Consider again, in AACR2 -- is the main entry (not an 
added entry) on a film version of Pride and Prejudice _ever_ Jane Austen? If it 
sometimes is, that might be a case where it is indeed being modelled as the 
same work. I don't think this is ever done? But I'm not a cataloger.]

It's not an unreasonable thing to suggest, but it's not conventional practice.  
My main point is that it's not about which choice is closer to reality of 
whether two things are the same work or not. There kind of isn't a reality of 
that, there isn't an actual work we can go touch and open up

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Laurence Creider]

But the creator of the book and the creator(s) of the movie are NOT the 
same people.  The movie contains aspects such as costume, set, choice of 
shots, sound, acting, and on and on that are the result of the actions of 
different creators, none of whom are Jane Austen.  Even the text is quite 
different, as someone pointed out about the Harry Potter movies (not to 
mention Lord of the Rings and the Twilight series).  So they book and the 
movie are not the same work.  Onee reason why the change of genre (or 
medium) involves moving from one work to another is because the change 
involves additional creative responsibility.  So what you have are related 
but not identical works.


This morning an e-mail on another list talked about a class in Chaucer 
that was competing to create the best Twitter version of various 
Canterbury Tales.  If these were to be cataloged, they would be separate 
works from the Canterbury Tales and would be considered as adaptations or 
even summaries.


--
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Kathleen Lamantia wrote:


Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's conception (work) no matter what 
form (expression) it takes, so I would answer your 2nd question, is the creator the 
same? with yes.  As to valid alternatives, that seems to me to be cataloger's 
judgment, so we are left with a situation in which book and movie will or will not be the 
same work depending on perception - and that's no way to run a railroad.


Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library 
service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR 
rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 


-Original Message-
From: Peter Schouten [mailto:pschou...@ingressus.nl]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 8:47 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Ask yourself: is the movie a valid alternative to the book? Is the creator of 
the movie the same as the creator of the book (if the answer is no to either, 
it can't be a work).

The purpose of FRBR has never been to put related works together in one 
hiërarchy, but the works will of course be related by association (which 
currently they often are not).

Peter Schouten
Ingressus


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] Namens Kathleen Lamantia
Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2011 14:41
Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Wait, wait!

I thought the entire purpose of FRBR/RDA was to collocate everything together so that patrons would 
see an entity-relationship display... therefore the book and the movie are 
only different expressions of the same work.  So now, this is NOT the case?

Please excuse me while I go in a closet and scream!

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community The Stark County 
District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library service, is one 
of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR rating, and is a 
Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:19 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

In conventional cataloging practice, and in what is suggested by FRBR/RDA as I 
understand it... no, it doesn't really matter. A movie version is a different 
work.

I think an argument could be made that a _very simple_ movie version, that is 
really just video of a bunch of actors sitting around a table doing a reading 
of the _exact_ text of the novel --- should be treated as the same work to be 
consistent --  If an audio-book of the exact text is considered the same work 
-- is it?

But I'm not sure about that, and I think that, otherwise, no, conventional 
practice is to consider the movie version a different work.
Conventional practice, as represented by legacy cataloging and FRBR/RDA's 
suggestions is NOT to have catalogers considering how much the movie differs 
from the book, and figuring out exactly how much is
too much.[Consider again, in AACR2 -- is the main entry (not an
added entry) on a film version of Pride and Prejudice _ever_ Jane Austen? If it 
sometimes is, that might be a case where it is indeed being modelled as the 
same work. I don't think this is ever done? But I'm not a cataloger.]

It's not an unreasonable thing

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kathleen Lamantia]

Yes, I see your point in a sense because the aspects vary - but it's still 
Austen's ideas and characters, etc...

I've finally figured out a way to express what FRBR/RDA feels like to me 
after several years of study and practice.

I feel as if I've fallen down the rabbit hole and am searching for Alice while 
accompanied by Franz Kafka.

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library 
service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR 
rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 


-Original Message-
From: Laurence Creider [mailto:lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu] 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 10:11 AM
To: Kathleen Lamantia
Cc: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

But the creator of the book and the creator(s) of the movie are NOT the 
same people.  The movie contains aspects such as costume, set, choice of 
shots, sound, acting, and on and on that are the result of the actions of 
different creators, none of whom are Jane Austen.  Even the text is quite 
different, as someone pointed out about the Harry Potter movies (not to 
mention Lord of the Rings and the Twilight series).  So they book and the 
movie are not the same work.  Onee reason why the change of genre (or 
medium) involves moving from one work to another is because the change 
involves additional creative responsibility.  So what you have are related 
but not identical works.

This morning an e-mail on another list talked about a class in Chaucer 
that was competing to create the best Twitter version of various 
Canterbury Tales.  If these were to be cataloged, they would be separate 
works from the Canterbury Tales and would be considered as adaptations or 
even summaries.

--
Laurence S. Creider
Special Collections Librarian
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-7227
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Kathleen Lamantia wrote:

 Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's conception 
 (work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would answer your 2nd 
 question, is the creator the same? with yes.  As to valid alternatives, 
 that seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we are left with a 
 situation in which book and movie will or will not be the same work depending 
 on perception - and that's no way to run a railroad.


 Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
 Technical Services Librarian
 Stark County District Library
 715 Market Avenue North
 Canton, OH 44702
 330-458-2723
 klaman...@starklibrary.org
 Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
 The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for 
 library service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to 
 the HAPLR rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. 

  


 -Original Message-
 From: Peter Schouten [mailto:pschou...@ingressus.nl]
 Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 8:47 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 Ask yourself: is the movie a valid alternative to the book? Is the creator of 
 the movie the same as the creator of the book (if the answer is no to either, 
 it can't be a work).

 The purpose of FRBR has never been to put related works together in one 
 hiërarchy, but the works will of course be related by association (which 
 currently they often are not).

 Peter Schouten
 Ingressus


 -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
 Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] Namens Kathleen Lamantia
 Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2011 14:41
 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 Wait, wait!

 I thought the entire purpose of FRBR/RDA was to collocate everything together 
 so that patrons would see an entity-relationship display... therefore the 
 book and the movie are only different expressions of the same work.  So 
 now, this is NOT the case?

 Please excuse me while I go in a closet and scream!

 Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
 Technical Services Librarian
 Stark County District Library
 715 Market Avenue North
 Canton, OH 44702
 330-458-2723
 klaman...@starklibrary.org
 Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community The Stark County 
 District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library service, is 
 one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR rating, and 
 is a Library Journal 5 Star library. 

  

 -Original Message-
 From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu]
 Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:19 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 In conventional cataloging practice, and in what is suggested by FRBR/RDA as 
 I understand it... no, it doesn't really

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
 Sent: April 8, 2011 10:25 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
 snip
 The handwringing I've seen on this list about how catalogers would be turned
 off or confused by the Work concept is quite embarrassing to the profession.
 LibraryThing is a joy to use because the users have few qualms about building
 things they like, and what makes the most sense to them is the Work concept.
 There's a treasure trove of cover art uploaded and concentrated at the work
 level, not the manifestation level-- what an excellent example of the fruitful
 applications that could arise if we recognize the benefits to the what's in
 RDA and start moving out of the straitjacket of MARC and card catalog-based
 models of catalog displays.
 /snip

 I confess that now I am more confused than ever! The concept of a work is now
 not even based on cataloger's judgment but on users' judgment? I think
 LibraryThing is an excellent tool for the public and we can learn a lot from
 it, but it can still be confusing. For example, in the Scarlet Letter example,
 in this record there are also links to movies. From the way I see it, the
 movies are considered as part of the same work of The Scarlet Letter.

RDA would call those Derivative Works under the Related Work element. 
LibraryThing calls them Related Movies.

Neither RDA nor LibraryThing calls them the same work.


 In my opinion, the handwringing displayed in this list over the work, far from
 being embarrassing, displays a laudable concern over the standards of our
 profession. The genuine embarrassment to our profession would be if everybody
 just said, Well, who cares? It doesn't make any difference anyway, so let
 everybody do whatever they want. What kind of a profession would that be?


As I've indicated above, both RDA and LibraryThing have specific approaches 
that ended up in the nearly the same result.

What should be laudable is when catalogers and uses see eye-to-eye and come up 
with the same result, which has happened.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Mike Tribby]

I've finally figured out a way to express what FRBR/RDA feels like to me 
after several years of study and practice.
I feel as if I've fallen down the rabbit hole and am searching for Alice while 
accompanied by Franz Kafka.

Yow! That's at least the second specific reference to the RDA discussion, if 
not RDA itself, that has referenced a cataloger feeling trapped in a work by 
Lewis Carroll! How literary can we get?

I would suggest, however, that those of us not quite 100% onboard the RDA 
express might want to include James Ellroy along with Carroll and Kafka in our 
allusions to add a little toughness  brio lest we be accused of more 
handwringing.

Ellroy also figures in the discussion of the relationship between novels and 
feature motion pictures, too, in that he was initially quite complimentary 
about the film version of his L.A. Confidential, calling it a distillation (or 
some such positive word) of his work, but he has now changed his mind about 
that. (He did, however, enjoy the remuneration the film supplied.) The film not 
only shortened the novel's story substantially, it also completely changed the 
ending of the story beyond all recognition.  Judgements about this sort of 
thing change over time, even judgments made by the principals involved.



Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Jonathan Rochkind]

 Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's conception 
 (work) no matter what form (expression)
 it takes, so I would answer your 2nd question, is the creator the same? 
 with yes.  As to valid alternatives,
 that seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we are left with a 
 situation in which book and movie will 
 or will not be the same work depending on perception - and that's no way to 
 run a railroad.

Again, all I can say is that this is not the decision that AACR2 or historical 
anglo-american cataloging makes, and FRBR/RDA bases itself off of 
anglo-american cataloging tradition. 

You will not find Austen, Jane 1775-1817 as the 'main entry' on any AACR2 
record for a movie version of Pride and Prejudice. 

There are probably reasons that anglo-american cataloging does this, that 
people could talk about.  It's a choice.  You're right that we want to be 
consistent to 'run a railroad', even though some people might consider the 
movie version the same work and some people might not.  So we have to make a 
choice. 

The purpose of the FRBR data model is to be explicit about our data modelling, 
so we can record our data in a way that software can have access to semantics 
to provide flexible interfaces to meet user needs.  The Group 1 W-E-M-I set is 
NOT the only semantics in data modelled according to FRBR, and if the movie 
work is appropriately related to the original text work, interfaces can still 
choose to present that relationship to the user in various ways. If they were 
simply modelled as the same work, interfaces would be unable to make that 
choice, interfaces would HAVE to present them as the same. That's another way 
to look at the run a railroad issue -- we need to model our data the same to 
share it, even though users have different needs in different contexts. So we 
should model it with maximum flexibility for eventual display, by modelling 
that work A is textual, work B is a movie, and work B is an adaptation or work 
A.  That's more information than simply saying Expression A (movie) and 
Expression B (text) are the same work. 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Weinheimer Jim]

On 08/04/2011 16:37, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
RDA would call those Derivative Works under the Related Work element. 
LibraryThing calls them Related Movies.

Neither RDA nor LibraryThing calls them the same work.
/snip

So, what is this record? http://www.librarything.com/work/2264 Is it a 
superwork? And when I click on the Related Movies 
http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/search.php?q=The+Scarlet+Letterf=37exact=1,
 all of the information seems to be only in the record for the Work (or 
superwork) and I get nothing when I click on the movies, except I see that 
record for the Norton critical edition as a different work. 

That's why I don't understand what the work is here.

James Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kathleen Lamantia]

I would welcome Mr. Ellroy's addition to the gang :)

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library 
service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR 
rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 


-Original Message-
From: Mike Tribby [mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 10:54 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

I've finally figured out a way to express what FRBR/RDA feels like to me 
after several years of study and practice.
I feel as if I've fallen down the rabbit hole and am searching for Alice while 
accompanied by Franz Kafka.

Yow! That's at least the second specific reference to the RDA discussion, if 
not RDA itself, that has referenced a cataloger feeling trapped in a work by 
Lewis Carroll! How literary can we get?

I would suggest, however, that those of us not quite 100% onboard the RDA 
express might want to include James Ellroy along with Carroll and Kafka in our 
allusions to add a little toughness  brio lest we be accused of more 
handwringing.

Ellroy also figures in the discussion of the relationship between novels and 
feature motion pictures, too, in that he was initially quite complimentary 
about the film version of his L.A. Confidential, calling it a distillation (or 
some such positive word) of his work, but he has now changed his mind about 
that. (He did, however, enjoy the remuneration the film supplied.) The film not 
only shortened the novel's story substantially, it also completely changed the 
ending of the story beyond all recognition.  Judgements about this sort of 
thing change over time, even judgments made by the principals involved.



Mike Tribby
Senior Cataloger
Quality Books Inc.
The Best of America's Independent Presses

mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kathleen Lamantia]

You will not find Austen, Jane 1775-1817 as the 'main entry' on any AACR2 
record for a movie version of Pride and Prejudice. - Yes, of course, that's 
exactly my point about FRBR/RDA

Kathleen F. Lamantia, MLIS
Technical Services Librarian
Stark County District Library
715 Market Avenue North
Canton, OH 44702
330-458-2723
klaman...@starklibrary.org
Inspiring Ideas ∙ Enriching Lives ∙ Creating Community
The Stark County District Library is a winner of the National Medal for library 
service, is one of the best 100 libraries in the U.S. according to the HAPLR 
rating, and is a Library Journal 5 Star library. 

 


-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:02 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's conception 
 (work) no matter what form (expression)
 it takes, so I would answer your 2nd question, is the creator the same? 
 with yes.  As to valid alternatives,
 that seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we are left with a 
 situation in which book and movie will 
 or will not be the same work depending on perception - and that's no way to 
 run a railroad.

Again, all I can say is that this is not the decision that AACR2 or historical 
anglo-american cataloging makes, and FRBR/RDA bases itself off of 
anglo-american cataloging tradition. 

You will not find Austen, Jane 1775-1817 as the 'main entry' on any AACR2 
record for a movie version of Pride and Prejudice. 

There are probably reasons that anglo-american cataloging does this, that 
people could talk about.  It's a choice.  You're right that we want to be 
consistent to 'run a railroad', even though some people might consider the 
movie version the same work and some people might not.  So we have to make a 
choice. 

The purpose of the FRBR data model is to be explicit about our data modelling, 
so we can record our data in a way that software can have access to semantics 
to provide flexible interfaces to meet user needs.  The Group 1 W-E-M-I set is 
NOT the only semantics in data modelled according to FRBR, and if the movie 
work is appropriately related to the original text work, interfaces can still 
choose to present that relationship to the user in various ways. If they were 
simply modelled as the same work, interfaces would be unable to make that 
choice, interfaces would HAVE to present them as the same. That's another way 
to look at the run a railroad issue -- we need to model our data the same to 
share it, even though users have different needs in different contexts. So we 
should model it with maximum flexibility for eventual display, by modelling 
that work A is textual, work B is a movie, and work B is an adaptation or work 
A.  That's more information than simply saying Expression A (movie) and 
Expression B (text) are the same work. 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

___
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim 
[j.weinhei...@aur.edu]
Sent: April-08-11 10:56 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

On 08/04/2011 16:37, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
RDA would call those Derivative Works under the Related Work element. 
LibraryThing calls them Related Movies.

Neither RDA nor LibraryThing calls them the same work.
/snip

So, what is this record? http://www.librarything.com/work/2264 Is it a 
superwork? And when I click on the
Related Movies http://www.librarything.com/commonknowledge/search.php?
q=The+Scarlet+Letterf=37exact=1, all of the information seems to be only in 
the record for the Work
(or superwork) and I get nothing when I click on the movies, except I see that 
record for the Norton critical
edition as a different work.

That's why I don't understand what the work is here.

LibraryThing doesn't have records for movies. That's why Related Movies are in 
a different section from the work-to-work relationships on that web page.

LibraryThing is A home for your books as its homepage indicates.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

___
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia 
[klaman...@starklibrary.org]
Sent: April-08-11 11:07 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

You will not find Austen, Jane 1775-1817 as the 'main entry' on any AACR2 
record for a movie version of Pride and Prejudice. - Yes, of
course, that's exactly my point about FRBR/RDA


Another way to look at this is to ask the question:

What English teacher would accept a student's excuse in not reading a book for 
class and watching the movie version instead because some librarian said 
(mistakeningly) that they were the same work?

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Myers, John F.]

Kathleen Lamantia wrote:

Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's conception 
(work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would answer your 2nd 
question, is the creator the same? with yes.  As to valid alternatives, that 
seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we are left with a situation in 
which book and movie will or will not be the same work depending on perception 
- and that's no way to run a railroad.

--

My first exposure to FRBR was at an ALA Preconference in 2004, where a slide 
introducing the Group 1 entities and their relationships included an arrow from 
Work back to Work, indicating that the Work concept could be extended 
iteratively to function at higher levels, i.e. in the manner of the superwork 
or family of works mentioned in other correspondence for this thread.  I have 
not seen that illustration since.

All explanations of FRBR since then have clearly articulated that a motion 
picture adaptation of a novel is a distinct and separate, if related, work.  
This has been confirmed by subsequent re-examination of FRBR itself, namely the 
work attribute Form of the Work.  To be blunt, this is NOT a matter of 
cataloger's judgment.

Personally, despite an initial tendency to view novel and movie as belonging 
under the same work (or at least superwork), and a lingering sympathy for 
that perspective, I have educated myself to respect FRBR's distinction between 
them as separate works (much as I learned to respect AACR2's take on editors 
and corporate bodies concerning authorship).  This personal journey has been 
bolstered, as others have observed, by the treatment of such pairings within 
AACR2 which, insofar as it can be viewed as FRBR compliant, gives them entirely 
different main entry headings with the implication they historically have been 
considered to be in distinct work families.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Trickey, Keith]

Good point Thomas!
What if it was the film of  Death of a salesman - with Dustin Hoffman - rather 
than the play text?


Still sunshine in Liverpool - soon be time for home!

The company on this list is good!

Best wishes

Keith

Keith V. Trickey
Programme Manager
MA / MSc Information  Library Management
Liverpool Business School
Tel: 0151 231 3446




-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Brenndorfer, Thomas
Sent: 08 April 2011 16:27
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

___
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Kathleen Lamantia 
[klaman...@starklibrary.org]
Sent: April-08-11 11:07 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

You will not find Austen, Jane 1775-1817 as the 'main entry' on any AACR2 
record for a movie version of Pride and Prejudice. - Yes, of
course, that's exactly my point about FRBR/RDA


Another way to look at this is to ask the question:

What English teacher would accept a student's excuse in not reading a book for 
class and watching the movie version instead because some librarian said 
(mistakeningly) that they were the same work?

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[D. Brooking]

John, that is a beautiful, eloquent explanation, one that 
works for me. Thank you.






Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian   (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library   dbroo...@u.washington.edu
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Myers, John F. wrote:


Kathleen Lamantia wrote:

Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's 
conception (work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would 
answer your 2nd question, is the creator the same? with yes.  As to 
valid alternatives, that seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we 
are left with a situation in which book and movie will or will not be 
the same work depending on perception - and that's no way to run a 
railroad.


--

My first exposure to FRBR was at an ALA Preconference in 2004, where a 
slide introducing the Group 1 entities and their relationships included 
an arrow from Work back to Work, indicating that the Work concept could 
be extended iteratively to function at higher levels, i.e. in the manner 
of the superwork or family of works mentioned in other 
correspondence for this thread.  I have not seen that illustration 
since.


All explanations of FRBR since then have clearly articulated that a 
motion picture adaptation of a novel is a distinct and separate, if 
related, work.  This has been confirmed by subsequent re-examination of 
FRBR itself, namely the work attribute Form of the Work.  To be blunt, 
this is NOT a matter of cataloger's judgment.


Personally, despite an initial tendency to view novel and movie as 
belonging under the same work (or at least superwork), and a lingering 
sympathy for that perspective, I have educated myself to respect FRBR's 
distinction between them as separate works (much as I learned to respect 
AACR2's take on editors and corporate bodies concerning authorship). 
This personal journey has been bolstered, as others have observed, by 
the treatment of such pairings within AACR2 which, insofar as it can be 
viewed as FRBR compliant, gives them entirely different main entry 
headings with the implication they historically have been considered to 
be in distinct work families.



John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Lasater, Mary Charles]

However, we must all remain aware that as we become 'indoctrinated' into the 
rules we are less likely to question them. This is something I point out each 
time I conduct NACO training. We should continue to question. The new trainees 
always have questions and too often the answer is 'because somebody (LC?) says 
so.' 

I also attended that ALA Preconference but unlike John, who has spent many, 
many hours with rules, I've spent many, many hours trying to figure out how our 
Discover system works with FRBR. I'm very concerned about the amount of time 
FRBR has forced me to spend on such a small percentage of the materials in our 
collection. I think the 'superwork' is user friendly, but others at my 
institution agree with John.

Mary Charles Lasater
Authorities Coordinator
Vanderbilt University

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Myers, John F.
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 10:32 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Kathleen Lamantia wrote:

Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's conception 
(work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would answer your 2nd 
question, is the creator the same? with yes.  As to valid alternatives, that 
seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we are left with a situation in 
which book and movie will or will not be the same work depending on perception 
- and that's no way to run a railroad.

--

My first exposure to FRBR was at an ALA Preconference in 2004, where a slide 
introducing the Group 1 entities and their relationships included an arrow from 
Work back to Work, indicating that the Work concept could be extended 
iteratively to function at higher levels, i.e. in the manner of the superwork 
or family of works mentioned in other correspondence for this thread.  I have 
not seen that illustration since.

All explanations of FRBR since then have clearly articulated that a motion 
picture adaptation of a novel is a distinct and separate, if related, work.  
This has been confirmed by subsequent re-examination of FRBR itself, namely the 
work attribute Form of the Work.  To be blunt, this is NOT a matter of 
cataloger's judgment.

Personally, despite an initial tendency to view novel and movie as belonging 
under the same work (or at least superwork), and a lingering sympathy for 
that perspective, I have educated myself to respect FRBR's distinction between 
them as separate works (much as I learned to respect AACR2's take on editors 
and corporate bodies concerning authorship).  This personal journey has been 
bolstered, as others have observed, by the treatment of such pairings within 
AACR2 which, insofar as it can be viewed as FRBR compliant, gives them entirely 
different main entry headings with the implication they historically have been 
considered to be in distinct work families.


John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
807 Union St.
Schenectady NY 12308

518-388-6623
mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Jonathan Rochkind]

 No librarian worth his/her salt would, which is my point about FRBR/RDA.  I 
 am NOT arguing in favor of it, 
 I'm only trying to deal with it as it is - or appears to be, or is trying to 
 be - thus my reference to Carroll and Kafka


I am very confused about your point of FRBR/RDA.  It does NOT decide that a 
movie is the same work as the book it's based on -- just like AACR2. 

You think this was the wrong choice, or the right choice?

Regardless, if the point is just deal with it as it is, the important thing is 
to recognize it makes the same choice here about movies and books as AACR2 did. 
AACR2 didn't talk about it explicitly in terms of work, FRBR adds a clear 
data modelling vocabulary -- to the same choice AACR2 was making, in this case. 

So what's your point exactly?

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[J. McRee Elrod]

Jonathan Rochdind said:

I am very confused about your point of FRBR/RDA.  It does NOT decide
that a movie is the same work as the book it's based on -- just like
AACR2.

Except that RDA does not require the 7XX for the book/movie in the
record for the other be justified in the description.  The
relationship may be in a 7XX$i, which the OPAC may or may not display.

That the book and movie are two different works has not changed, but
how that information is conveyed to the patron would.


   __   __   J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
  {__  |   / Special Libraries Cataloguing   HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
  ___} |__ \__

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Kevin M. Randall]

Mac Elrod wrote:

 Except that RDA does not require the 7XX for the book/movie in the
 record for the other be justified in the description.  The
 relationship may be in a 7XX$i, which the OPAC may or may not display.

Sound to me like a problem with the OPAC, not with the cataloging rules.

Actually, RDA is not talking about either 7XX or that something be
justified in the description.  RDA says that you record the relationship,
and gives several options, one of which in our current cataloging
environment is accomplished by using 7XX with subfield $i for the
relationship designator.  The RDA guidelines could just as well (although
with *FAR* less utility!) be followed in a MARC record by using a 5XX note.
It would be equally as legal to use both 5XX and 7XX, but that is
redundancy that we should work toward eliminating.  If the preferred name of
the related resource in the 7XX is identical to the form that would be used
in a 5XX note, then the use of 7XX $i is exactly the same as a 5XX note for
the purpose of *recording* the relationship; using 5XX adds nothing in a
case like this.

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Bibliographic Services Dept.
Northwestern University Library
1970 Campus Drive
Evanston, IL  60208-2300
email: k...@northwestern.edu
phone: (847) 491-2939
fax:   (847) 491-4345

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Leigh, Andrea]

Jane Austen's novel was the basis for the motion picture Pride and Prejudice, 
but it is not the work Austen conceptualized. This would be like someone 
thinking that a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it is the work of DaVinci.

Andrea

--

Andrea Leigh
Moving Image Processing Unit Head
Library of Congress
Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation
19053 Mt. Pony Rd.
Culpeper, VA  22701
ph: 202-707-0852
email: a...@loc.gov



-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of D. Brooking
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:40 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

John, that is a beautiful, eloquent explanation, one that works for me. Thank 
you.





Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian   (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library   dbroo...@u.washington.edu
University of Washington
Box 352900
Seattle WA  98195-2900

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Myers, John F. wrote:

 Kathleen Lamantia wrote:

 Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's 
 conception (work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would 
 answer your 2nd question, is the creator the same? with yes.  As to 
 valid alternatives, that seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we 
 are left with a situation in which book and movie will or will not be 
 the same work depending on perception - and that's no way to run a 
 railroad.

 --

 My first exposure to FRBR was at an ALA Preconference in 2004, where a 
 slide introducing the Group 1 entities and their relationships included 
 an arrow from Work back to Work, indicating that the Work concept could 
 be extended iteratively to function at higher levels, i.e. in the manner 
 of the superwork or family of works mentioned in other 
 correspondence for this thread.  I have not seen that illustration 
 since.

 All explanations of FRBR since then have clearly articulated that a 
 motion picture adaptation of a novel is a distinct and separate, if 
 related, work.  This has been confirmed by subsequent re-examination of 
 FRBR itself, namely the work attribute Form of the Work.  To be blunt, 
 this is NOT a matter of cataloger's judgment.

 Personally, despite an initial tendency to view novel and movie as 
 belonging under the same work (or at least superwork), and a lingering 
 sympathy for that perspective, I have educated myself to respect FRBR's 
 distinction between them as separate works (much as I learned to respect 
 AACR2's take on editors and corporate bodies concerning authorship). 
 This personal journey has been bolstered, as others have observed, by 
 the treatment of such pairings within AACR2 which, insofar as it can be 
 viewed as FRBR compliant, gives them entirely different main entry 
 headings with the implication they historically have been considered to 
 be in distinct work families.


 John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
 Schaffer Library, Union College
 807 Union St.
 Schenectady NY 12308

 518-388-6623
 mye...@union.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Stephen Early]

 This would be
 like someone thinking that a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it is the work
 of DaVinci.

Which reminds me of Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. (Mona Lisa with a mustache) and 
the Andy Warhol silk screen prints of Mona Lisa. How would these fit into the 
FRBR model? (enjoying this very interesting discussion)

Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545
sea...@crl.edu
CRL website: www.crl.edu
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Leigh, Andrea
 Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:56 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
 
 Jane Austen's novel was the basis for the motion picture Pride and
 Prejudice, but it is not the work Austen conceptualized. This would be
 like someone thinking that a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it is the work
 of DaVinci.
 
 Andrea
 
 --
 
 Andrea Leigh
 Moving Image Processing Unit Head
 Library of Congress
 Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation
 19053 Mt. Pony Rd.
 Culpeper, VA  22701
 ph: 202-707-0852
 email: a...@loc.gov
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of D. Brooking
 Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:40 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
 
 John, that is a beautiful, eloquent explanation, one that works for me.
 Thank you.
 
 
 
 
 
 Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
 Cataloging Librarian   (206) 685-8782 fax
 Suzzallo Library   dbroo...@u.washington.edu
 University of Washington
 Box 352900
 Seattle WA  98195-2900
 
 On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Myers, John F. wrote:
 
  Kathleen Lamantia wrote:
 
  Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's
  conception (work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would
  answer your 2nd question, is the creator the same? with yes.  As to
  valid alternatives, that seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we
  are left with a situation in which book and movie will or will not be
  the same work depending on perception - and that's no way to run a
  railroad.
 
  --
 
  My first exposure to FRBR was at an ALA Preconference in 2004, where a
  slide introducing the Group 1 entities and their relationships included
  an arrow from Work back to Work, indicating that the Work concept could
  be extended iteratively to function at higher levels, i.e. in the manner
  of the superwork or family of works mentioned in other
  correspondence for this thread.  I have not seen that illustration
  since.
 
  All explanations of FRBR since then have clearly articulated that a
  motion picture adaptation of a novel is a distinct and separate, if
  related, work.  This has been confirmed by subsequent re-examination of
  FRBR itself, namely the work attribute Form of the Work.  To be blunt,
  this is NOT a matter of cataloger's judgment.
 
  Personally, despite an initial tendency to view novel and movie as
  belonging under the same work (or at least superwork), and a lingering
  sympathy for that perspective, I have educated myself to respect FRBR's
  distinction between them as separate works (much as I learned to respect
  AACR2's take on editors and corporate bodies concerning authorship).
  This personal journey has been bolstered, as others have observed, by
  the treatment of such pairings within AACR2 which, insofar as it can be
  viewed as FRBR compliant, gives them entirely different main entry
  headings with the implication they historically have been considered to
  be in distinct work families.
 
 
  John F. Myers, Catalog Librarian
  Schaffer Library, Union College
  807 Union St.
  Schenectady NY 12308
 
  518-388-6623
  mye...@union.edu
 
 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Dan Matei]

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Early sea...@crl.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 20:19:47 +

  This would be
  like someone thinking that a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it is the work
  of DaVinci.
 
 Which reminds me of Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. (Mona Lisa with a mustache) 
 and the Andy Warhol silk screen prints of
 Mona Lisa. How would these fit into the FRBR model? (enjoying this very 
 interesting discussion)

Works by Duchamp and - respectively - Warhol.

L.H.O.O.Q. isATransformationOf Mona Lisa (FRBR, Table 5.1)
Four Marilyns isATransformationOf Mona Lisa

Likewise:

Sergei Rachmaninoff – Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43
Robert Schumann – Etudes After Paganini Caprices, Op. 3
Johannes Brahms – Variations on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 35
Luigi Dallapiccola – Sonatina canonica in mi bemolle maggiore su Capricci di 
Niccolo Paganini

are related via isATransformationOf to Paganini's Caprice No. 24 in A minor.

IMO.

Dan

---
Dan Matei, director
Institutul de Memorie Culturală - CIMEC
Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90
013701 București [Bucharest], Romania, www.cimec.ro
tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64
www.cimec.ro

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Pat Sayre McCoy]

I really should stay out of this because FRBR makes my head spin, but what the 
heck, it's Friday--in some way; the Mona Lisa t-shirt is related to the 
original Mona Lisa and I would argue that they are not different FRBR works but 
different expressions, maybe not the child of the painting but a second cousin 
once removed (?). I have always understood the FRBR work to represent Plato's 
World of Forms idea--the work existed in someone's head (Da Vinci, Jane Austen, 
Dan Brown) before it was make physical. The first physical piece is the first 
manifestation. Someone is inspired by this to make it into a movie or a t-shirt 
or an illustrated edition, but there is still some relation to the first 
idea--what would the t-shirt be if Da Vinci hadn't painted the Mona Lisa? 
Something else but not a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it. So the t-shirt has 
to be dependent on the painting already existing, therefore they are somehow 
related. So as a good FRBR data manager I would have to link them somehow. 

Maybe the RDA relationships are too limited to express this.
Pat


Patricia Sayre-McCoy
Head of Law Cataloging and Serials
D'Angelo Law Library
1121 E. 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
p-mc...@uchicago.edu
773-702-9620 (office)
773-702-2885 (fax)

-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Stephen Early
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 3:20 PM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 This would be
 like someone thinking that a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it is the work
 of DaVinci.

Which reminds me of Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. (Mona Lisa with a mustache) and 
the Andy Warhol silk screen prints of Mona Lisa. How would these fit into the 
FRBR model? (enjoying this very interesting discussion)

Stephen T. Early
Cataloger
Center for Research Libraries
6050 S. Kenwood
Chicago, IL  60637
773-955-4545
sea...@crl.edu
CRL website: www.crl.edu
 

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Leigh, Andrea
 Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:56 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
 
 Jane Austen's novel was the basis for the motion picture Pride and
 Prejudice, but it is not the work Austen conceptualized. This would be
 like someone thinking that a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it is the work
 of DaVinci.
 
 Andrea
 
 --
 
 Andrea Leigh
 Moving Image Processing Unit Head
 Library of Congress
 Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation
 19053 Mt. Pony Rd.
 Culpeper, VA  22701
 ph: 202-707-0852
 email: a...@loc.gov
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of D. Brooking
 Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:40 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR
 
 John, that is a beautiful, eloquent explanation, one that works for me.
 Thank you.
 
 
 
 
 
 Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
 Cataloging Librarian   (206) 685-8782 fax
 Suzzallo Library   dbroo...@u.washington.edu
 University of Washington
 Box 352900
 Seattle WA  98195-2900
 
 On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Myers, John F. wrote:
 
  Kathleen Lamantia wrote:
 
  Well, it seems to me that Pride and Prejudice is Jane Austen's
  conception (work) no matter what form (expression) it takes, so I would
  answer your 2nd question, is the creator the same? with yes.  As to
  valid alternatives, that seems to me to be cataloger's judgment, so we
  are left with a situation in which book and movie will or will not be
  the same work depending on perception - and that's no way to run a
  railroad.
 
  --
 
  My first exposure to FRBR was at an ALA Preconference in 2004, where a
  slide introducing the Group 1 entities and their relationships included
  an arrow from Work back to Work, indicating that the Work concept could
  be extended iteratively to function at higher levels, i.e. in the manner
  of the superwork or family of works mentioned in other
  correspondence for this thread.  I have not seen that illustration
  since.
 
  All explanations of FRBR since then have clearly articulated that a
  motion picture adaptation of a novel is a distinct and separate, if
  related, work.  This has been confirmed by subsequent re-examination of
  FRBR itself, namely the work attribute Form of the Work.  To be blunt,
  this is NOT a matter of cataloger's judgment.
 
  Personally, despite an initial tendency to view novel and movie as
  belonging under the same work (or at least superwork), and a lingering
  sympathy for that perspective, I have educated myself to respect FRBR's
  distinction between them as separate works (much as I learned to respect
  AACR2's take on editors and corporate bodies

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Weinheimer Jim]

On 08/04/2011 22:19, Stephen Early wrote:
snip
Which reminds me of Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. (Mona Lisa with a mustache) and 
the Andy Warhol silk screen prints of Mona Lisa. How would these fit into the 
FRBR model? (enjoying this very interesting discussion)
/snip

I agree that this is an interesting discussion, but how about something a bit 
more realistic in this new universe of information? I have taken a position 
as consultant to FAO of the UN and we are discussing online statistical 
databases. What is the WEMI of something like Google Public Data, e.g. here is 
a database, *held at Eurostat* but accessed (in real time) through the 
incredible Google statistical tools, that allows the user to see the relative 
minimum wages in Greece, Netherlands, and Great Britain (I selected these 
countries myself). http://tinyurl.com/3bbqrh3. Here is another interesting 
dataset: unemployment in the US since 1990 http://tinyurl.com/3uom8fs, the 
database held at the US Dept. of Labor Statistics. Click on the arrow and watch 
the movie.

Individuals can now add their own statistical tables, too.

Or, here are Craiglist apartment listings on Google Maps. 
http://www.housingmaps.com/.

You can use Google Earth to map archaeological findings; Google maps again, to 
plot the protests in the Middle East http://tinyurl.com/4crzdzg

These are just some of the tools that are genuinely new, i.e. they have never 
existed before, that people are finding very useful, and I am sure there are 
far more complex tools than these. What is the value of WEMI to our users or 
even to librarians, in these cases? Do we ignore the resources that don't fit, 
or are we forced to shoehorn everything into a WEMI structure, which I 
personally believe is based on printed materials? Catalogers also can't spend 
all day on one record, as many people think we do. 

WEMI is based on a physical view of the information universe and the world is 
moving away from the limitations of the physical.
-- 
James Weinheimer  j.weinhei...@aur.edu
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Pat Sayre McCoy
 Sent: April 8, 2011 5:15 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 I really should stay out of this because FRBR makes my head spin, but what the
 heck, it's Friday--in some way; the Mona Lisa t-shirt is related to the
 original Mona Lisa and I would argue that they are not different FRBR works
 but different expressions, maybe not the child of the painting but a second
 cousin once removed (?). I have always understood the FRBR work to represent
 Plato's World of Forms idea--the work existed in someone's head (Da Vinci,
 Jane Austen, Dan Brown) before it was make physical. The first physical piece
 is the first manifestation. Someone is inspired by this to make it into a
 movie or a t-shirt or an illustrated edition, but there is still some relation
 to the first idea--what would the t-shirt be if Da Vinci hadn't painted the
 Mona Lisa? Something else but not a t-shirt with the Mona Lisa on it. So the
 t-shirt has to be dependent on the painting already existing, therefore they
 are somehow related. So as a good FRBR data manager I would have to link them
 somehow.

 Maybe the RDA relationships are too limited to express this.
 Pat



RDA has a huge number of possible derivative work relationship designators (for 
bibliographic resources of course, not for T-shirts).


A better question to ask would be:
If these are all the same work (but different expressions), where then is the 
room for derived works?



A sampling from RDA Appendix J.2.2 for Derivative Work Relationships:

* adaptation of (work). A work that has been modified for a purpose, use, or 
medium other than that for which it was originally intended. Reciprocal 
relationship: adapted as (work)

* free translation of (work). A work that has been translated freely, 
preserving the spirit of the original, but not its linguistic details. 
Reciprocal relationship: freely translated as (work)

* imitation of (work). A work whose style or content is copied in a derivative 
work. Reciprocal relationship: imitated as (work)

* parody of (work). A work whose style or content is imitated for comic effect. 
Reciprocal relationship: parodied as (work)

* remake of (work). A work used as the basis for a new motion picture, radio 
program, television program, or video. Reciprocal relationship: remade as (work)

* paraphrase of (work) A work used as the basis for a paraphrase, i.e., a 
restating of the content of the source work in a different form. Reciprocal 
relationship: paraphrased as (work)

* abridgement of (work). A work that has been abridged, i.e., shortened without 
changing the general meaning or manner of presentation of the source work. 
Reciprocal relationship: abridged as (work)


Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Brenndorfer, Thomas]

 -Original Message-
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
 [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
 Sent: April 8, 2011 5:29 PM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

.


 Individuals can now add their own statistical tables, too.

 Or, here are Craiglist apartment listings on Google Maps.
 http://www.housingmaps.com/.

 You can use Google Earth to map archaeological findings; Google maps again, to
 plot the protests in the Middle East http://tinyurl.com/4crzdzg

 These are just some of the tools that are genuinely new, i.e. they have never
 existed before, that people are finding very useful, and I am sure there are
 far more complex tools than these. What is the value of WEMI to our users or
 even to librarians, in these cases? Do we ignore the resources that don't fit,
 or are we forced to shoehorn everything into a WEMI structure, which I
 personally believe is based on printed materials? Catalogers also can't spend
 all day on one record, as many people think we do.

 WEMI is based on a physical view of the information universe and the world is
 moving away from the limitations of the physical.
 --


And what if none of that data is curated? Looks like a recipe for a digital 
dark age if people can't go back and find and identify resources that held that 
information. Slipping the limits of the physical could also mean disappearing 
from the universe forever.

This is purely a scope issue. There's administrative data, access control data, 
rights data, acquisitions data, usage data, user-supplied data, document 
management and preservation data, event data, to go with bibliographic data and 
authority data and subject data (the three FR models). Extending and 
integrating data models in the bibliographic world has not stopped with FRBR. 
There's FRBRoo for example, which integrates museum data with library data as 
outlined in FRBR, and so expands FRBR significantly with temporal entities: 
(http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/wgfrbr/FRBRoo_V9.1_PR.pdf). Data models 
doesn't suddenly cancel each other out or make their basis invalid-- extensions 
and modifications and integration and mutual enrichment should be welcome.

A down-to-earth example. The coolest feature in LibraryThing is the ability to 
upload cover art images. This is done most efficiently by organizing them 
around a Work entity-- a value proposition that can't be beat. This was just 
the most logical way to model the data-- there's nothing suddenly obsolete or 
archaic about it. If anything it shows that FRBR ideas can enter the stream of 
innovative ideas and applications just as well as the myriad other models out 
there.

Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Trickey, Keith]

Congratulations Jeff - you are a member of an elite club - those who admit to 
not understanding FRBR. When I try and sort it out I am fine with Manifestation 
and Item sort of OK with Expression but lost in clouds of bibliographic and 
philosophic musings when it comes to Work.



Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room struggle with 
this - how is the wider community supposed to make sense of it?



Thank you for your honesty Jeff!



Best wishes



Keith

Keith Trickey

Liverpool Business School


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access 
[RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jeff Peckosh [jpeck...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:13 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR

I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can 
anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR is 
in a simple English?
I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so 
much.

Thanks,

Jeff Peckosh
Public Library Cataloging Librarian

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Bernhard Eversberg]

07.04.2011 08:03, Trickey, Keith:



 Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room
 struggle with this - how is the wider community supposed to make
 sense of it?


At the end of the day, what matters is if and how catalog users
can make sense of it, if not even become attracted to it.
The language of FRBR is, at least in important parts, the one of the
database engine room, not the bibliographic engine room, which means
one room further away from the end user. The two engine rooms must,
however, be better able to communicate, so both sides need to have
some understanding of the other. Not a new topic at all.
The entity-relationship model (don't mix that up with the relational
database model!) provides the foundation for FRBR. FRBR was written
so as to make database engineers better understand what they are
supposed to think and to do.
Google's database engineers will have a language of their own, too.
But nothing of it seeps through into their user interface, and this
is what must be achieved with FRBR as well. The very acronym FRBR
must not show up there, and not shudder FRBRized either, nor
entity or expression or manifestation and so on.

Coming to think of it, Functional Requirements of Bibliographic
Records does not really reveal much of what it is talking about.
From todays view of database theory, something like Bibliographically
Structured Object Model (BiStrOM) would be much more plausible,
and this could trickle through into the user room as Bistro Catalog.
And get rid of the dry and dreadful RDA as well! I mean, how
unimaginative can we allow ourselves to get...

B.Eversberg

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Sandra Knapp]

Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access   
RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA writes:
I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can 
anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR 
is in a simple English?
I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so 
much.
The best thing I've read so far is Introducing RDA by Chris Oliver:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooksunfiltered=1field-keywords=field-author=oliver%2C+chrisfield-title=rdafield-isbn=9780838935941field-publisher=node=field-p_n_condition-type=field-feature_browse-bin=field-
binding_browse-bin=field-subject=field-language=field-dateop=field-datemod=field-dateyear=sort=relevanceexprankAdv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=0Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=0

cheers,

Sandra Knapp
Head Cataloguer
hours: 8:00 am to 3:30 pm, Mon-Fri.
Waterloo Region District School Board
Library Services Dept. 
(519)570-0300 x4621

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[runjuliet]

Here's a nice visual representation of the
Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via
Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html

Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, and
screenplay together...



*Amanda Raab*

Catalog and Metadata Librarian

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives

2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115

phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964

ar...@rockhall.org | www.rockhall.com/library



*
*





On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh jpeck...@yahoo.com wrote:

 I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can
 anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR
 is in a simple English?
 I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help
 so much.

 Thanks,

 Jeff Peckosh
 Public Library Cataloging Librarian

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Adam L. Schiff]

This is nice, thanks for providing it Amanda.  Besides the links between the related 
works, I saw one other error: in the item for the DVD, the material type is shown as 
BOOK.

Adam

^^
Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-8409
(206) 685-8782 fax
asch...@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff
~~

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, runjuliet wrote:


Here's a nice visual representation of the Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item 
facets of the FRBR model I found via Twitter this
morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html

Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, and 
screenplay together...

 

Amanda Raab

Catalog and Metadata Librarian

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives

2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115

phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964

ar...@rockhall.org | www.rockhall.com/library

 



 



On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh jpeck...@yahoo.com wrote:
  I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can 
anybody please tell me where I can find a
  literature that explains what FRBR is in a simple English?
I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help so 
much.
 
Thanks,

Jeff Peckosh
Public Library Cataloging Librarian

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Gene Fieg]

Keith,  I wrote something a while back that ended up on a couple lists.  The
core of the idea is that there is not such thing as work.  It is one of
the those Platonic ideal forms of which everything else is a reflection:
expression, manifestation, item

For instance, according to Plato, when you see a horse, you are not seeing a
horse, only a reflection (partial at best) of the ideal horse.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Trickey, Keith k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.ukwrote:

 Congratulations Jeff - you are a member of an elite club - those who admit
 to not understanding FRBR. When I try and sort it out I am fine with
 Manifestation and Item sort of OK with Expression but lost in clouds of
 bibliographic and philosophic musings when it comes to Work.



 Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room struggle
 with this - how is the wider community supposed to make sense of it?



 Thank you for your honesty Jeff!



 Best wishes



 Keith

 Keith Trickey

 Liverpool Business School

 
 From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [
 RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jeff Peckosh [
 jpeck...@yahoo.com]
 Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:13 AM
 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
 Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR

  I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can
 anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR
 is in a simple English?
 I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help
 so much.

 Thanks,

 Jeff Peckosh
 Public Library Cataloging Librarian




-- 
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Jonathan Rochkind]

I say this now and then, but I think the FRBR entities make a lot more 
sense considered as set relationships (ala Svenonius and I think Yee), 
which avoids the 'platonic' nature of the entities considered 
otherwise.  This isn't an attack on the model itself, I think the model 
is fine, and just makes more sense conceptually considered as 
representing sets of actual physical things (the only physical thing is 
the 'item'), rather than as platonic things in themselves.


http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/frbr-considered-as-set-relationships/
http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/notes-frbr-wemi-entities-physicality-interchangeability-merging/

On 4/7/2011 12:59 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
Keith,  I wrote something a while back that ended up on a couple 
lists.  The core of the idea is that there is not such thing as 
work.  It is one of the those Platonic ideal forms of which 
everything else is a reflection: expression, manifestation, item
For instance, according to Plato, when you see a horse, you are not 
seeing a horse, only a reflection (partial at best) of the ideal horse.


On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Trickey, Keith 
k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.uk mailto:k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.uk wrote:


Congratulations Jeff - you are a member of an elite club - those
who admit to not understanding FRBR. When I try and sort it out I
am fine with Manifestation and Item sort of OK with Expression but
lost in clouds of bibliographic and philosophic musings when it
comes to Work.



Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room
struggle with this - how is the wider community supposed to make
sense of it?



Thank you for your honesty Jeff!



Best wishes



Keith

Keith Trickey

Liverpool Business School


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jeff Peckosh
[jpeck...@yahoo.com mailto:jpeck...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:13 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR

I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand
FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature
that explains what FRBR is in a simple English?
I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate
your help so much.

Thanks,

Jeff Peckosh
Public Library Cataloging Librarian




--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu mailto:gf...@cst.edu

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Casey A Mullin]

Ditto, Jonathan. The description/access needs of information objects 
beget the abstractions in the model, not the other way around.


Cheers,
Casey

On 4/7/2011 10:59 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
I say this now and then, but I think the FRBR entities make a lot more 
sense considered as set relationships (ala Svenonius and I think Yee), 
which avoids the 'platonic' nature of the entities considered 
otherwise.  This isn't an attack on the model itself, I think the 
model is fine, and just makes more sense conceptually considered as 
representing sets of actual physical things (the only physical thing 
is the 'item'), rather than as platonic things in themselves.


http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/frbr-considered-as-set-relationships/
http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/notes-frbr-wemi-entities-physicality-interchangeability-merging/

On 4/7/2011 12:59 PM, Gene Fieg wrote:
Keith,  I wrote something a while back that ended up on a couple 
lists.  The core of the idea is that there is not such thing as 
work.  It is one of the those Platonic ideal forms of which 
everything else is a reflection: expression, manifestation, item
For instance, according to Plato, when you see a horse, you are not 
seeing a horse, only a reflection (partial at best) of the ideal horse.


On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Trickey, Keith 
k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.uk mailto:k.v.tric...@ljmu.ac.uk wrote:


Congratulations Jeff - you are a member of an elite club - those
who admit to not understanding FRBR. When I try and sort it out I
am fine with Manifestation and Item sort of OK with Expression
but lost in clouds of bibliographic and philosophic musings when
it comes to Work.



Just a gentle aside - if members of the bibliogrpahic engine room
struggle with this - how is the wider community supposed to make
sense of it?



Thank you for your honesty Jeff!



Best wishes



Keith

Keith Trickey

Liverpool Business School


From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and
Access [RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] on behalf of Jeff Peckosh
[jpeck...@yahoo.com mailto:jpeck...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 12:13 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] FRBR

I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand
FRBR. Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature
that explains what FRBR is in a simple English?
I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate
your help so much.

Thanks,

Jeff Peckosh
Public Library Cataloging Librarian




--
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu mailto:gf...@cst.edu


--
Casey A. Mullin
Discovery Metadata Librarian
Metadata Development Unit
Stanford University Libraries
650-736-0849
cmul...@stanford.edu
http://www.caseymullin.com

--

Those who need structured and granular data and the precise retrieval that results 
from it to carry out research and scholarship may constitute an elite minority rather 
than most of the people of the world (sadly), but that talented and intelligent minority 
is an important one for the cultural and technological advancement of humanity. It is 
even possible that if we did a better job of providing access to such data, we might 
enable the enlargement of that minority.
-Martha Yee

attachment: cmullin.vcf

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Aleta Copeland]

 Here's a nice visual representation of the
Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via
Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html


 

Shouldn't all the expression just be under one Work, since the Work is the
insubstantial idea that then is created as an expression?  For example, I
would definitely want all versions of say Pride and Prejudice listed as the
same work, then have all the expressions of it listed below that, with the
manifestations listed for each expression.

 

**

**

Aleta Copeland, MLS

Head of Technical Services

Ouachita Parish Public Library

1800 Stubbs Ave.

Monroe, LA 71201

318-327-1490 ex. 3015

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of runjuliet
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:37 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

 

Here's a nice visual representation of the
Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found via
Twitter this morning: http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html

Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, and
screenplay together...

 

Amanda Raab

Catalog and Metadata Librarian

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives

2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115

phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964

 mailto:ar...@rockhall.org ar...@rockhall.org |
http://www.rockhall.com/library www.rockhall.com/library

 

 




 

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh jpeck...@yahoo.com wrote:


I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. Can
anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains what FRBR
is in a simple English?

I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your help
so much.

 

Thanks,

Jeff Peckosh
Public Library Cataloging Librarian

 

Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

[Jonathan Rochkind]

The 'conventional' modelling choice right now is to call the film 
version of Pride and Prejudice a different (creative) 'work' than the 
novel, and the film script yet different again.


This is a somewhat arbitrary choice -- when modelling reality, we have 
to make choices on how to 'summarize' reality in our modelled data, in 
the most useful ways for our use cases. It is my opinion that neither 
choice is neccesarily more 'right', any model is neccesarily a 
summarized 'lossy encoding' of reality.


In this case, that choice is arguably most consistent with legacy 
cataloging practice, where a film version gets a different authority 
record than the original novel -- and perhaps more importantly, gets a 
different 'main entry'.  Things that are the same 'work' in legacy 
cataloging practice are going to have the same main entry, if they have 
different main entries, that means legacy cataloging practice treated 
them as different works. Sort of, it's ambiguous, part of the point of 
FRBR/RDA is to make it less ambiguous and more consistent, but (for 
better or for worse), follow the lead of our inherited legacy practice.


So, anyway, the modelling choices say that a novel and a film based on 
it belong to different 'work' sets -- but they can certainly still be 
related by OTHER relationships, such as a work-to-work relationship is 
based upon.


Jonathan

On 4/7/2011 4:15 PM, Aleta Copeland wrote:


 Here's a nice visual representation of the 
Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found 
via Twitter this morning: 
http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html



Shouldn’t all the expression just be under one Work, since the Work is 
the insubstantial idea that then is created as an expression?  For 
example, I would definitely want all versions of say Pride and 
Prejudice listed as the same work, then have all the expressions of it 
listed below that, with the manifestations listed for each expression.


**

**

Aleta Copeland, MLS

Head of Technical Services

Ouachita Parish Public Library

1800 Stubbs Ave.

Monroe, LA 71201

318-327-1490 ex. 3015

*From:*Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and 
Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] *On Behalf Of *runjuliet

*Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:37 AM
*To:* RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
*Subject:* Re: [RDA-L] FRBR

Here's a nice visual representation of the 
Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item facets of the FRBR model I found 
via Twitter this morning: 
http://www.aurochs.org/frbr_example/frbr_example.html


Only problem with it, to me, is that it doesn't link the novel, film, 
and screenplay together...


*Amanda Raab*

Catalog and Metadata Librarian

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum | Library and Archives

2809 Woodland Avenue | Cleveland, OH 44115

phone: 216.515.1932 | fax: 216.515.1964

ar...@rockhall.org mailto:ar...@rockhall.org| 
www.rockhall.com/library http://www.rockhall.com/library



On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jeff Peckosh jpeck...@yahoo.com 
mailto:jpeck...@yahoo.com wrote:


I started panicking over the fact that I still don't understand FRBR. 
Can anybody please tell me where I can find a literature that explains 
what FRBR is in a simple English?


I also don't know how to relate FRBR with RDA. I would appreciate your 
help so much.


Thanks,

Jeff Peckosh
Public Library Cataloging Librarian