Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
-Original Message- From: McElwain, Paul Benjamin [mailto:pbmce...@indiana.edu] In my working on the Variations FRBR implementation, as a data modeler, I was struck by little attention had been paid to the relationships by the FRBR Report. I'm not surprised though, treating the relationships at at entity level (having their own attribution) is a more obtuse exercise of abstraction. We do treat relationships as attributed entities, for more information about the role involved. (a creator may be as a composer) One way to think about the originality of an expression of a work, being the first ever expression, could be as an attribute of the relationship between the work and expression. Paul... Paul, I agree that from a theoretical perspective it makes a lot of sense to model the original expression as an attribute of the relationship between the work and that expression. Or to do what FRBRoo did and make classes like Work Conception and F28 Expression Creation. It's not really clear to me that in our particular situation there is any practical advantage to trying to do that rather than creating a merged work/primary expression entity. This has to do with the kind of expressions we're mostly modeling and the way we're trying to model them. Most of the moving image expressions that average libraries deal with are defined not by what I think of as bundled attributes, but are rather a set of independent attributes. This is unlike the typical music expression, which I think of as a set of bundled attributes. If you know you have a performance of X work on Y date in Z venue then, if someone has previously created in an expression record, you know a number of other things about that expression such as the composer, performers, and arrangement of the piece without having to re-verify them again. All those things could productively be stored as a unit. This also happens with film with various cuts such as airplane versions or director's cuts. These do have some associated attributes, notably length, but also perhaps a different editor. For the kinds of unbundled attributes that are common with moving images, especially DVDs, there are a large number of attributes, like soundtrack and subtitle languages, accessibility options (captions, audio descriptions), and aspect ratio, that vary independently. With these kinds of unbundled expression attributes, a cataloger has to reexamine all of them every time there is a new manifestation. If there's a change in our knowledge of what subtitles are on a specific manifestation, it does not have automatic implications for any other manifestation that might have that same constellation of options. The other types of attributes that describe the original expression of a film are those that never change because they are important facts about the history of the work that we want to note in conjunction with any future expression. Many of these are things that RDA says are attributes of expressions that moving image catalogers would tend to think of as attributes of works (e.g., casts and costume designers do not vary among expressions so why record them on every expression?). In a sense, at least for moving images, the original expression is bit of an abstraction and in practice we get most of our information from reference sources. At first, I thought we could just model these unbundled attributes of the expression as attributes of the manifestation/publication since, as I mentioned above, they have to be verified with every new manifestation anyway. Work record 1 Dracula (1931) Tod Browning English Manifestation record 1 1 VHS videocassette (1985) OCLC#: 13754402 Audio: English I ran into trouble with manifestations that include more than one work. Some still work well enough, either because the expression-level information is all the same or is unknown. Work record 1 Ursula (1961) Lloyd Michael Williams English Manifestation record 1 1 DVD video (2005) Experiments in terror ISBN: 0976523922 Audio: English Work record 2 Journey into the Unknown (2002 ) Kerry Laitala English However, in some cases, the expression-level information varies between two works on a single manifestation/publication. The manifestation below includes two versions of Dracula, each in its original language. For the prototype, I just made two different manifestation records, which repeat most of the same information. That doesn't seem to me to be a desirable long-term solution. Work record 1 Dracula (1931) Tod Browning English Manifestation record 1 1 DVD video (1999) ISBN: 0783227450 Audio: English Subtitles: English or French Work record 2 Dracula (1931) George Medford Spanish Manifestation record 2 1 DVD video (1999) ISBN: 0783227450 Audio: Spanish Subtitles: English or French So I think we do need the intermediate expression level, but I am not sure if
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Okay, I tried to put in tables and that didn't work. I'm trying again with tabs. See if this makes more sense--Kelley -Original Message- From: McElwain, Paul Benjamin [mailto:pbmce...@indiana.edu] In my working on the Variations FRBR implementation, as a data modeler, I was struck by little attention had been paid to the relationships by the FRBR Report. I'm not surprised though, treating the relationships at at entity level (having their own attribution) is a more obtuse exercise of abstraction. We do treat relationships as attributed entities, for more information about the role involved. (a creator may be as a composer) One way to think about the originality of an expression of a work, being the first ever expression, could be as an attribute of the relationship between the work and expression. Paul... Paul, I agree that from a theoretical perspective it makes a lot of sense to model the original expression as an attribute of the relationship between the work and that expression. Or to do what FRBRoo did and make classes like Work Conception and F28 Expression Creation. It's not really clear to me that in our particular situation there is any practical advantage to trying to do that rather than creating a merged work/primary expression entity. This has to do with the kind of expressions we're mostly modeling and the way we're trying to model them. Most of the moving image expressions that average libraries deal with are defined not by what I think of as bundled attributes, but are rather a set of independent attributes. This is unlike the typical music expression, which I think of as a set of bundled attributes. If you know you have a performance of X work on Y date in Z venue then, if someone has previously created in an expression record, you know a number of other things about that expression such as the composer, performers, and arrangement of the piece without having to re-verify them again. All those things could productively be stored as a unit. This also happens with film with various cuts such as airplane versions or director's cuts. These do have some associated attributes, notably length, but also perhaps a different editor. For the kinds of unbundled attributes that are common with moving images, especially DVDs, there are a large number of attributes, like soundtrack and subtitle languages, accessibility options (captions, audio descriptions), and aspect ratio, that vary independently. With these kinds of unbundled expression attributes, a cataloger has to reexamine all of them every time there is a new manifestation. If there's a change in our knowledge of what subtitles are on a specific manifestation, it does not have automatic implications for any other manifestation that might have that same constellation of options. The other types of attributes that describe the original expression of a film are those that never change because they are important facts about the history of the work that we want to note in conjunction with any future expression. Many of these are things that RDA says are attributes of expressions that moving image catalogers would tend to think of as attributes of works (e.g., casts and costume designers do not vary among expressions so why record them on every expression?). In a sense, at least for moving images, the original expression is bit of an abstraction and in practice we get most of our information from reference sources. At first, I thought we could just model these unbundled attributes of the expression as attributes of the manifestation/publication since, as I mentioned above, they have to be verified with every new manifestation anyway. [Work record 1 is linked to Manifestation record 1] Work record 1 Manifestation record 1 Dracula (1931) OCLC#: 13754402 Tod BrowningAudio: English English I ran into trouble with manifestations that include more than one work. Some still work well enough, either because the expression-level information is all the same or is unknown. [Work record 1 is linked to Manifestation record 1] [Work record 2 is also linked to Manifestation record 1] Work record 1 Ursula (1961) Lloyd Michael Williams Manifestation record 1 English 1 DVD video (2005) Experiments in terror Work record 2 ISBN: 0976523922 Journey into the Unknown (2002 )Audio: English Kerry Laitala English However, in some cases, the expression-level information varies between two works on a single manifestation/publication. The manifestation below includes two versions of Dracula, each in its original language. For the prototype, I just made two different manifestation records, which repeat most of the same information. That doesnt seem to me
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
On 15.12.2010 00:25 Vacek, Rachel E wrote: Idea and Thing are way too vague for my comfort. The word Work is already used with a definition similar to FRBR's. When we speak of Shakespeare's works, we aren't talking about any particular edition, translation, or adaptation. We are talking about the stories themselves, independent of any physical manifestation (unless we are more specific by saying Shakespeare's works in English, etc.). An author working on his masterpiece might call it his life's work. He may wave around the manuscript when saying it, but he really isn't talking about the physical document, but the conceptual content of the material. It will still be his life's work when it comes out in first edition, and third paperback reprint. All FRBR has done is take this definition which already exists in the English language and refine it into a formal structure with other components describing both the physical and conceptual aspects of bibliographic material. Well, I get the idea but what I find very difficult is to decide how long it is still the same work, when this conceptual content changes. E.g. there are new editions of the work. Sometimes only some errata are corrected, sometimes a whole chapter is added, in the next edition it is completely revised. Or lets take the work with the most complex edition history: the Bible. There at least the Hebrew bible (not just a translation, or better the original but with a different canon), the catholic and the protestant version. Then of course all the translations, sometimes with a very special focus. Then we have children bibles, sometimes with the original texts (maybe in a simplified translation), sometimes as a paraphrase -- and all this in all possible variants of completeness. Perhaps the stories considered particularly cruel are left out or whatever the editor found appropriate. Or the text is the same but it has a substantial illustration part, perhaps from a well known artist. You get the idea. How long is it still a manifestation of the original work? How much change has to be done to the text that it becomes a new work? My guess is that it is almost impossible to draw such a line though at the same time I see that it somehow makes sense to speak of a work. And this is the point where I am a bit lost... The problem is not just philosophical. If I want to present links to other manifestations of the title on display in the OPAC, I have to draw this line. I'll have to decide which links to show. --Michael
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Quoting Michael Lackhoff mich...@lackhoff.de: How long is it still a manifestation of the original work? How much change has to be done to the text that it becomes a new work? My guess is that it is almost impossible to draw such a line though at the same time I see that it somehow makes sense to speak of a work. And this is the point where I am a bit lost... The problem is not just philosophical. If I want to present links to other manifestations of the title on display in the OPAC, I have to draw this line. I'll have to decide which links to show. While I don't disagree with this dilemma, I don't think it is new. FRBR simply formalizes already existing cataloging concepts. Work is the title portion of a uniform title (240) field, or the author/title presented in a 7xx field. Expression is the Work + language + format, etc., like Hamlet. Danish. 1937. The difference seems to be that we didn't overtly identify Works in most records (even when we did have translations, the uniform title was often not used). So FRBR makes all of this more part of the cataloging process. I think that the Work decision is unfamiliar to most of us, but some catalogers have been making that decision all along when creating uniform titles or added entries. (The added entries in music cataloging are a prime example.) Where I think we run into a problem is when we try to use FRBR as a record structure rather than conceptual guidance, which is what you allude to. This is the place where some implementations have decided to either merge Work and Expression or Expression and Manifestation because the Expression layer seems to make user displays more difficult. (I have also heard that the XC project found that putting the FRBR levels back together for display was inefficient.) If you consider that the card catalog entries would have been filed in this order: Author Uniform title Title then in FRBR terms that is Work - Manifestation, with possibly some Expression info included in the Uniform Title, but only in some circumstances (e.g. translations and new editions). kc -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Karen Coyle li...@kcoyle.net wrote: Where I think we run into a problem is when we try to use FRBR as a record structure rather than conceptual guidance, which is what you allude to. This is the place where some implementations have decided to either merge Work and Expression or Expression and Manifestation because the Expression layer seems to make user displays more difficult. (I have also heard that the XC project found that putting the FRBR levels back together for display was inefficient.) Right, and I think this leads to all sorts of other ugliness, too: FRBR-izing aggregations of things (musical albums, anthologies, conference proceedings, etc.) is a potential UX nightmare (from both an end user AND data entry perspective). That said, there are enormous benefits of modeling these things, too: I am not suggesting we sweep them under the rug (which is basically what we've historically done), but some we're going to need to figure out an acceptable balance. -Ross.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
This is not my area of expertise ... but if Work in FRBR doesn't mean any particular manifestation, expression or item ... what does it mean? Do Works live in Plato's world of Ideas where abstracted version of things exist in a more real and more true sense than any shifty mimes in our world of sensation and change? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms Is it a bit like copyright law -- Works (ideas) can't be copyrighted but manifestations, expressions and items can? Or is Work actually an empty container that doesn't really exist -- even in the World of Ideas hovering over the Earth -- until it is filled with at least one (manifestation, expression, item)? And if so, who chose this particular word? Was something wrong with calling it ... Idea? Or even ... Thing? Why work? Work to me in plain English and even librarianese definitely implies a manifested thing, not the idea of thing that transcends any particular and specific expression.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
In my opinion, the best way to understand Work is as the set of all expressions/manifestations that... belong to that Work. Work is sort of a culturally constructed concept, but we know it when we see it. But I think the WEMI heirarchy is best understood as set relationships -- while not explained this way in the FRBR document itself, it is in no way _incompatible_ with the FRBR model, it's just another way to look at the FRBR entities. The more traditional way to look at the FRBR entities is that more 'platonic' approach as you say -- while I think it's ultimately equivalent, I think it's a lot more confusing to talk about platonic things that don't actually exist, then it is to talk about sets of things that do exist. I think you may find this earlier essay I wrote on the same subject helpful: http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/frbr-considered-as-set-relationships/ On 12/14/2010 2:11 PM, Susan Kane wrote: This is not my area of expertise ... but if Work in FRBR doesn't mean any particular manifestation, expression or item ... what does it mean? Do Works live in Plato's world of Ideas where abstracted version of things exist in a more real and more true sense than any shifty mimes in our world of sensation and change? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms Is it a bit like copyright law -- Works (ideas) can't be copyrighted but manifestations, expressions and items can? Or is Work actually an empty container that doesn't really exist -- even in the World of Ideas hovering over the Earth -- until it is filled with at least one (manifestation, expression, item)? And if so, who chose this particular word? Was something wrong with calling it ... Idea? Or even ... Thing? Why work? Work to me in plain English and even librarianese definitely implies a manifested thing, not the idea of thing that transcends any particular and specific expression.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Susan Kane said: This is not my area of expertise ... but if Work in FRBR doesn't mean any particular manifestation, expression or item ... what does it mean? Do Works live in Plato's world of Ideas where abstracted version of things exist in a more real and more true sense than any shifty mimes in our world of sensation and change? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms Sort of. You could also say that it is similar to a meme. A Work is independent of any particular Manifestation, and has no physical form form itself. When a Work is represented in a physical form, that form is a Manifestation. The Work-Manifestation relationship applies equally to all manifestations of the Work. There can be a first Manifestation of a Work (and a library would have little reason to catalog a Work if there were no physical Manifestation), but every Manifestation of that Work is just as much a physical representation of the Work as any other. In many ways, it is indeed similar to the Platonic Ideal. Is it a bit like copyright law -- Works (ideas) can't be copyrighted but manifestations, expressions and items can? Or is Work actually an empty container that doesn't really exist -- even in the World of Ideas hovering over the Earth -- until it is filled with at least one (manifestation, expression, item)? I couldn't really say, and I'm not sure that it matters. Libraries have no need to worry about Works which have no Manifestation, so in practice I don't find it hard to recognize the Work-Manifestation relationship in the materials we actually work with. And if so, who chose this particular word? Was something wrong with calling it ... Idea? Or even ... Thing? Why work? Work to me in plain English and even librarianese definitely implies a manifested thing, not the idea of thing that transcends any particular and specific expression. Idea and Thing are way too vague for my comfort. The word Work is already used with a definition similar to FRBR's. When we speak of Shakespeare's works, we aren't talking about any particular edition, translation, or adaptation. We are talking about the stories themselves, independent of any physical manifestation (unless we are more specific by saying Shakespeare's works in English, etc.). An author working on his masterpiece might call it his life's work. He may wave around the manuscript when saying it, but he really isn't talking about the physical document, but the conceptual content of the material. It will still be his life's work when it comes out in first edition, and third paperback reprint. All FRBR has done is take this definition which already exists in the English language and refine it into a formal structure with other components describing both the physical and conceptual aspects of bibliographic material. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
McDonald, Stephen steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu wrote: Susan Kane said: This is not my area of expertise ... but if Work in FRBR doesn't mean any particular manifestation, expression or item ... what does it mean? Do Works live in Plato's world of Ideas where abstracted version of things exist in a more real and more true sense than any shifty mimes in our world of sensation and change? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms Sort of. You could also say that it is similar to a meme. A Work is independent of any particular Manifestation, and has no physical form form itself. When a Work is represented in a physical form, that form is a Manifestation. The Work-Manifestation relationship applies equally to all manifestations of the Work. There can be a first Manifestation of a Work (and a library would have little reason to catalog a Work if there were no physical Manifestation), but every Manifestation of that Work is just as much a physical representation of the Work as any other. In many ways, it is indeed similar to the Platonic Ideal. Is it a bit like copyright law -- Works (ideas) can't be copyrighted but manifestations, expressions and items can? Or is Work actually an empty container that doesn't really exist -- even in the World of Ideas hovering over the Earth -- until it is filled with at least one (manifestation, expression, item)? I couldn't really say, and I'm not sure that it matters. Libraries have no need to worry about Works which have no Manifestation, so in practice I don't find it hard to recognize the Work-Manifestation relationship in the materials we actually work with. And if so, who chose this particular word? Was something wrong with calling it ... Idea? Or even ... Thing? Why work? Work to me in plain English and even librarianese definitely implies a manifested thing, not the idea of thing that transcends any particular and specific expression. Idea and Thing are way too vague for my comfort. The word Work is already used with a definition similar to FRBR's. When we speak of Shakespeare's works, we aren't talking about any particular edition, translation, or adaptation. We are talking about the stories themselves, independent of any physical manifestation (unless we are more specific by saying Shakespeare's works in English, etc.). An author working on his masterpiece might call it his life's work. He may wave around the manuscript when saying it, but he really isn't talking about the physical document, but the conceptual content of the material. It will still be his life's work when it comes out in first edition, and third paperback reprint. All FRBR has done is take this definition which already exists in the English language and refine it into a formal structure with other components describing both the physical and conceptual aspects of bibliographic material. Steve McDonald steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:03 PM, McDonald, Stephen steve.mcdon...@tufts.edu wrote: I couldn't really say, and I'm not sure that it matters. Libraries have no need to worry about Works which have no Manifestation, so in practice I don't find it hard to recognize the Work-Manifestation relationship in the materials we actually work with. This is a pretty narrow view of what libraries need to worry about. There are lots of Works that have no Manifestations, the antiquities are littered with them (references to things that only existed in the library of Alexandria, etc.). Just because they're not on our shelf (or any shelf) doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge them. -Ross.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Kelley, this is great! Thanks. And since you already have so much written up, would you consider going a bit further and offering it to the code4lib journal? My reasons are selfish -- i'd like to be able to find and cite this in the future. Later I may have a few comments. kc Quoting Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu: We called it FRBR-inspired since it probably wouldn't pass muster as an orthodox FRBR interpretation. We were looking to experiment with a practical approach that we thought would make it much easier for patrons to discover moving images in libraries and archives. If you haven't read it, the about page gives a general overview of our approach at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/about Our top level is a combination of FRBR work information and information about what we are calling the primary expression. We haven't made any internal distinction between these two types of information. This enables us to record together the data that we think people expect to see about the generic moving image and reflects the sort of information that is given in IMDb, the All Movie Guide, and film and TV reference sources. This is also the data that we would want to re-use in every MARC record for a manifestation of a given movie. This also allowed us to get around some of the areas of more orthodox FRBR modeling that we found unhelpful. For example, FRBR doesn't allow language at the Work level, but we think it is important to record the original language of a moving image at the top level. In addition, RDA has mapped a number of functions, such as art director, costume designer and performer, to the expression level. We would prefer to present these at the top level. It is hard to imagine a version of Gone With the Wind with a different costume designer or cast that would still be the same work. So all the Seven Samurai data you listed above belongs either to the work or the primary expression. We mingle expression, manifestation and item information in the version facets on the right. We don't show any explicit expression records. In this demonstration we are not actually identifying any unique expressions, although in the future we will probably want to do this for what I think of as named expressions. Since this is a demo, we are working with a limited number of attributes and the only expression-level facets we provide are soundtrack and subtitle languages. In this sense, our approach is similar to the near manifestation idea that Simon mentioned. We are not trying to assert that we have identified particular expressions. Rather, we are trying to provide a mechanism for the user to identify the set of items that meet their needs. It is not clear to me that libraries are always in a position to accurately identify expressions. Rather than providing a hierarchical view where the user selects a work, then an expression, and so on, as is common in FRBR presentations, we permit the user to begin at any FRBR level. The user is invited to limit by as many characteristics as they desire to delineate the set of things that they are interested in. They only need to select as many attributes as are important to them and no more. This may not meet the needs of all scholars, but we hope that it will meet the vast majority of general purpose user needs. It's a bit of a different approach than I have seen elsewhere, but I think it works particularly well for moving images. One of the main reasons I think this is because of the types of expressions that predominate in commercial moving images. I will try to explain some of my thoughts on types of expressions below. 1. Expressions that can be reduced to controlled vocabulary options These are the most common types of commercial moving image expressions, especially in the DVD era. They are distinguished by characteristics that such as Soundtrack language(s) Subtitle language(s) Accessibility options (captioning, SDH, and audio description) Aspect ratio (although in this era of widescreen TVs, full screen modifications are less common) Colorization Soundtracks for silent films These can be full described based on standardized data (although for the silent film soundtracks, this would involve multiple pieces of information, i.e., musical work, composer, conductor, performer(s), etc.) DVD often contain what essentially are multiple expressions in that they offer multiple soundtrack and subtitle options and may offer multiple aspect ratios. A silent film on DVD may come with alternate soundtracks. All of these can be combined in various ways by the viewer, which can make for a large number of expressions contained in a single manifestation. 2. Named expressions These are versions that are different in moving image content due to have been edited differently. Examples include Theatrical release
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Kelly, Thank you for your message on the FRBR-inspired thinking. I'll second Karen's request that you get this or an expansion of this note published. With as complex a thing as a film--so many authors, images, music, dialog, acting, sets, costume, etc., etc., etc., applying the FRBR model is tough, and your implementation is quite sensible. However, I had a small question about one thing you said about FRBR not allowing language at the work level. That doesn't seem right to me. How could the language of a thing that is primarily or even partially a work made of language--like a novel or a motion picture with spoken dialogue would not necessarily be considered at the work level and not at some other level. Because of the way we treat translations--not just in FRBR--as what FRBR calls expressions not as new works, a translation from the original language to another would be considered an FRBR expression. Could you explain this a bit more? Thank you. Matthew -Original Message- ... This also allowed us to get around some of the areas of more orthodox FRBR modeling that we found unhelpful. For example, FRBR doesn't allow language at the Work level, but we think it is important to record the original language of a moving image at the top level.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Quoting Beacom, Matthew matthew.bea...@yale.edu: Sometimes I feel like we should all have the FRBR diagram tattoo'd on our arms so we can consult it any time anywhere. :-) With as complex a thing as a film--so many authors, images, music, dialog, acting, sets, costume, etc., etc., etc., applying the FRBR model is tough, and your implementation is quite sensible. However, I had a small question about one thing you said about FRBR not allowing language at the work level. That doesn't seem right to me. How could the language of a thing that is primarily or even partially a work made of language--like a novel or a motion picture with spoken dialogue would not necessarily be considered at the work level and not at some other level. Matthew, I can't answer how it is possible but I can tell you that it is a fact: language is an attribute of Expression, not of Work. That's kind of the key meaning of frbr:Expression -- it is the Expression of the Work, and the Work doesn't exist until Expressed. So Work is a very abstract concept in FRBR. (Which is why more than one attempted implementation of FRBR that I have seen combines Work and Expression attributes in some way.) Not only that, but Kelley's model uses something that I consider to be missing from FRBR: the concept of a original Expression. For FRBR (and thus for RDA) all expressions are in a sense equal; there is no privileged first or original expression. Yet there is evidence that this is a useful concept in the minds of users. Some recent user studies [1] around FRBR showed that this is a concept that users come up with spontaneously. Also, I can't think of any field of study where knowing what the original expression of a work was wouldn't be important. Because of the way we treat translations--not just in FRBR--as what FRBR calls expressions not as new works, a translation from the original language to another would be considered an FRBR expression. Could you explain this a bit more? The FRBR relationship translation of is an Expression-to-Expression relationship. (See my personal cheat sheet of RDA/FRBR relationships [2]). kc [1] http://www.asis.org/asist2010/abstracts/75.html [2] http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1relsby.html Thank you. Matthew -Original Message- ... This also allowed us to get around some of the areas of more orthodox FRBR modeling that we found unhelpful. For example, FRBR doesn't allow language at the Work level, but we think it is important to record the original language of a moving image at the top level. -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Thank you, Karen, It has been awhile since I refreshed my memory with actually reading FRBR. Language is an attribute of the FRBR expression and not the FRBR work entity. I must still have a dominate pre-FRBR concept of work in my mind! I need another 5 years in the re-education camp. Matthew -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:51 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface Quoting Beacom, Matthew matthew.bea...@yale.edu: Sometimes I feel like we should all have the FRBR diagram tattoo'd on our arms so we can consult it any time anywhere. :-) With as complex a thing as a film--so many authors, images, music, dialog, acting, sets, costume, etc., etc., etc., applying the FRBR model is tough, and your implementation is quite sensible. However, I had a small question about one thing you said about FRBR not allowing language at the work level. That doesn't seem right to me. How could the language of a thing that is primarily or even partially a work made of language--like a novel or a motion picture with spoken dialogue would not necessarily be considered at the work level and not at some other level. Matthew, I can't answer how it is possible but I can tell you that it is a fact: language is an attribute of Expression, not of Work. That's kind of the key meaning of frbr:Expression -- it is the Expression of the Work, and the Work doesn't exist until Expressed. So Work is a very abstract concept in FRBR. (Which is why more than one attempted implementation of FRBR that I have seen combines Work and Expression attributes in some way.) Not only that, but Kelley's model uses something that I consider to be missing from FRBR: the concept of a original Expression. For FRBR (and thus for RDA) all expressions are in a sense equal; there is no privileged first or original expression. Yet there is evidence that this is a useful concept in the minds of users. Some recent user studies [1] around FRBR showed that this is a concept that users come up with spontaneously. Also, I can't think of any field of study where knowing what the original expression of a work was wouldn't be important. Because of the way we treat translations--not just in FRBR--as what FRBR calls expressions not as new works, a translation from the original language to another would be considered an FRBR expression. Could you explain this a bit more? The FRBR relationship translation of is an Expression-to-Expression relationship. (See my personal cheat sheet of RDA/FRBR relationships [2]). kc [1] http://www.asis.org/asist2010/abstracts/75.html [2] http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1relsby.html Thank you. Matthew -Original Message- ... This also allowed us to get around some of the areas of more orthodox FRBR modeling that we found unhelpful. For example, FRBR doesn't allow language at the Work level, but we think it is important to record the original language of a moving image at the top level. -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Matthew, I find it confusing as well, but as Karen points out, that's the way the FRBR model does things. It seems to be driven by the need for the work to be such an abstract thing that it is prior to words. However, it does seem to me that the meaning of the language of a particular expression is not complete without reference to the original language. One of the FRAD drafts (http://archive.ifla.org/VII/d4/franar-conceptual-model-2ndreview.pdf) actually did propose original language as an attribute of the work (The language in which the work was first expressed), but that axed so it seems to have been a very conscious decision on the part of the creators of FRBR. The idea does seem to have generated some controversy. From ALA's feedback on this draft: At least one task force member was a bit uneasy with this attribute, noting that, although the attribute has a certain utility, the work entity is abstract in FRBR and is not associated with any particular language (e.g. Ancient Greek is the language of the first expression of the Iliad, but not the language of the work, which encompasses what all of the expressions have in common). Others thought that an original language attribute was appropriate for work (for textual works, anyway), that all expressions of a work do have the same original language even if the language of the expressions themselves can differ, and that the attribute is necessary for determining whether or not the expression represents a translation. It was suggested that the attribute would not be appropriate for a superwork entity, were one to be defined. (http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/docs/tf-frad3.pdf) Kelley -Original Message- From: Beacom, Matthew matthew.bea...@yale.edu Thank you, Karen, It has been awhile since I refreshed my memory with actually reading FRBR. Language is an attribute of the FRBR expression and not the FRBR work entity. I must still have a dominate pre-FRBR concept of work in my mind! I need another 5 years in the re-education camp. Matthew -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:51 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface Quoting Beacom, Matthew matthew.bea...@yale.edu: Sometimes I feel like we should all have the FRBR diagram tattoo'd on our arms so we can consult it any time anywhere. :-) With as complex a thing as a film--so many authors, images, music, dialog, acting, sets, costume, etc., etc., etc., applying the FRBR model is tough, and your implementation is quite sensible. However, I had a small question about one thing you said about FRBR not allowing language at the work level. That doesn't seem right to me. How could the language of a thing that is primarily or even partially a work made of language--like a novel or a motion picture with spoken dialogue would not necessarily be considered at the work level and not at some other level. Matthew, I can't answer how it is possible but I can tell you that it is a fact: language is an attribute of Expression, not of Work. That's kind of the key meaning of frbr:Expression -- it is the Expression of the Work, and the Work doesn't exist until Expressed. So Work is a very abstract concept in FRBR. (Which is why more than one attempted implementation of FRBR that I have seen combines Work and Expression attributes in some way.) Not only that, but Kelley's model uses something that I consider to be missing from FRBR: the concept of a original Expression. For FRBR (and thus for RDA) all expressions are in a sense equal; there is no privileged first or original expression. Yet there is evidence that this is a useful concept in the minds of users. Some recent user studies [1] around FRBR showed that this is a concept that users come up with spontaneously. Also, I can't think of any field of study where knowing what the original expression of a work was wouldn't be important. Because of the way we treat translations--not just in FRBR--as what FRBR calls expressions not as new works, a translation from the original language to another would be considered an FRBR expression. Could you explain this a bit more? The FRBR relationship translation of is an Expression-to-Expression relationship. (See my personal cheat sheet of RDA/FRBR relationships [2]). kc [1] http://www.asis.org/asist2010/abstracts/75.html [2] http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1relsby.html Thank you. Matthew -Original Message- ... This also allowed us to get around some of the areas of more orthodox FRBR modeling that we found unhelpful. For example, FRBR doesn't allow language at the Work level, but we think it is important to record the original language of a moving image at the top level. -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Karen, I'm glad you found it helpful and I will definitely consider writing it up somewhere. Right now I'm also struggling to write something up on the data modeling problems I had in a way that is comprehensible to anyone other than me. That might make a good complement to this discussion. I look forward to any comments or suggestions that you or anyone else has. We are trying to get as much feedback as possible. Kelley -Original Message- Kelley, this is great! Thanks. And since you already have so much written up, would you consider going a bit further and offering it to the code4lib journal? My reasons are selfish -- i'd like to be able to find and cite this in the future. Later I may have a few comments. kc Quoting Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu: We called it FRBR-inspired since it probably wouldn't pass muster as an orthodox FRBR interpretation. We were looking to experiment with a practical approach that we thought would make it much easier for patrons to discover moving images in libraries and archives. If you haven't read it, the about page gives a general overview of our approach at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/about
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
One other thing about this project that might be of interest to Code4Lib readers is that the most technically challenging part of the interface was making the facets work properly so that they simultaneously applied limits across tables that are linked with a many-to-many relationship. The two main tables that are involved are Movies/Programs (works/primary expressions) and Versions (expression/manifestations). These go with the two sets of facets, which we visually separate for the interface in the hopes of communicating their different functions to users. Movies obviously can have many versions. If you look at the Citizen Kane record, you can see that it was released in many formats, including VHS, DVD and LaserDisc, with various language options. A given manifestation can also contain more than one work. If you search for Kyle XY, you'll get ten records for episodes that are part of a season of the TV program. These are all on the same manifestation. The versions table is also linked to a table that represents items and is the intersection of the versions/manifestations table and the libraries table, but this is a one-to-many relationship. The facet counts under Versions are really for items, but it would be interesting to see whether this would be more useful if the count was for versions. Kelley
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Kelly, In my working on the Variations FRBR implementation, as a data modeler, I was struck by little attention had been paid to the relationships by the FRBR Report. I'm not surprised though, treating the relationships at at entity level (having their own attribution) is a more obtuse exercise of abstraction. We do treat relationships as attributed entities, for more information about the role involved. (a creator may be as a composer) One way to think about the originality of an expression of a work, being the first ever expression, could be as an attribute of the relationship between the work and expression. Paul... On 12/13/10 1:28 PM, Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu wrote: Matthew, I find it confusing as well, but as Karen points out, that's the way the FRBR model does things. It seems to be driven by the need for the work to be such an abstract thing that it is prior to words. However, it does seem to me that the meaning of the language of a particular expression is not complete without reference to the original language. One of the FRAD drafts (http://archive.ifla.org/VII/d4/franar-conceptual-model-2ndreview.pdf) actually did propose original language as an attribute of the work (The language in which the work was first expressed), but that axed so it seems to have been a very conscious decision on the part of the creators of FRBR. The idea does seem to have generated some controversy. From ALA's feedback on this draft: At least one task force member was a bit uneasy with this attribute, noting that, although the attribute has a certain utility, the work entity is abstract in FRBR and is not associated with any particular language (e.g. Ancient Greek is the language of the first expression of the Iliad, but not the language of the work, which encompasses what all of the expressions have in common). Others thought that an original language attribute was appropriate for work (for textual works, anyway), that all expressions of a work do have the same original language even if the language of the expressions themselves can differ, and that the attribute is necessary for determining whether or not the expression represents a translation. It was suggested that the attribute would not be appropriate for a superwork entity, were one to be defined. (http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/docs/tf-frad3.pdf) Kelley -Original Message- From: Beacom, Matthew matthew.bea...@yale.edu Thank you, Karen, It has been awhile since I refreshed my memory with actually reading FRBR. Language is an attribute of the FRBR expression and not the FRBR work entity. I must still have a dominate pre-FRBR concept of work in my mind! I need another 5 years in the re-education camp. Matthew -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 10:51 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface Quoting Beacom, Matthew matthew.bea...@yale.edu: Sometimes I feel like we should all have the FRBR diagram tattoo'd on our arms so we can consult it any time anywhere. :-) With as complex a thing as a film--so many authors, images, music, dialog, acting, sets, costume, etc., etc., etc., applying the FRBR model is tough, and your implementation is quite sensible. However, I had a small question about one thing you said about FRBR not allowing language at the work level. That doesn't seem right to me. How could the language of a thing that is primarily or even partially a work made of language--like a novel or a motion picture with spoken dialogue would not necessarily be considered at the work level and not at some other level. Matthew, I can't answer how it is possible but I can tell you that it is a fact: language is an attribute of Expression, not of Work. That's kind of the key meaning of frbr:Expression -- it is the Expression of the Work, and the Work doesn't exist until Expressed. So Work is a very abstract concept in FRBR. (Which is why more than one attempted implementation of FRBR that I have seen combines Work and Expression attributes in some way.) Not only that, but Kelley's model uses something that I consider to be missing from FRBR: the concept of a original Expression. For FRBR (and thus for RDA) all expressions are in a sense equal; there is no privileged first or original expression. Yet there is evidence that this is a useful concept in the minds of users. Some recent user studies [1] around FRBR showed that this is a concept that users come up with spontaneously. Also, I can't think of any field of study where knowing what the original expression of a work was wouldn't be important. Because of the way we treat translations--not just in FRBR--as what FRBR calls expressions not as new works, a translation from the original
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
We called it FRBR-inspired since it probably wouldn't pass muster as an orthodox FRBR interpretation. We were looking to experiment with a practical approach that we thought would make it much easier for patrons to discover moving images in libraries and archives. If you haven't read it, the about page gives a general overview of our approach at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/about Our top level is a combination of FRBR work information and information about what we are calling the primary expression. We haven't made any internal distinction between these two types of information. This enables us to record together the data that we think people expect to see about the generic moving image and reflects the sort of information that is given in IMDb, the All Movie Guide, and film and TV reference sources. This is also the data that we would want to re-use in every MARC record for a manifestation of a given movie. This also allowed us to get around some of the areas of more orthodox FRBR modeling that we found unhelpful. For example, FRBR doesn't allow language at the Work level, but we think it is important to record the original language of a moving image at the top level. In addition, RDA has mapped a number of functions, such as art director, costume designer and performer, to the expression level. We would prefer to present these at the top level. It is hard to imagine a version of Gone With the Wind with a different costume designer or cast that would still be the same work. So all the Seven Samurai data you listed above belongs either to the work or the primary expression. We mingle expression, manifestation and item information in the version facets on the right. We don't show any explicit expression records. In this demonstration we are not actually identifying any unique expressions, although in the future we will probably want to do this for what I think of as named expressions. Since this is a demo, we are working with a limited number of attributes and the only expression-level facets we provide are soundtrack and subtitle languages. In this sense, our approach is similar to the near manifestation idea that Simon mentioned. We are not trying to assert that we have identified particular expressions. Rather, we are trying to provide a mechanism for the user to identify the set of items that meet their needs. It is not clear to me that libraries are always in a position to accurately identify expressions. Rather than providing a hierarchical view where the user selects a work, then an expression, and so on, as is common in FRBR presentations, we permit the user to begin at any FRBR level. The user is invited to limit by as many characteristics as they desire to delineate the set of things that they are interested in. They only need to select as many attributes as are important to them and no more. This may not meet the needs of all scholars, but we hope that it will meet the vast majority of general purpose user needs. It's a bit of a different approach than I have seen elsewhere, but I think it works particularly well for moving images. One of the main reasons I think this is because of the types of expressions that predominate in commercial moving images. I will try to explain some of my thoughts on types of expressions below. 1. Expressions that can be reduced to controlled vocabulary options These are the most common types of commercial moving image expressions, especially in the DVD era. They are distinguished by characteristics that such as Soundtrack language(s) Subtitle language(s) Accessibility options (captioning, SDH, and audio description) Aspect ratio (although in this era of widescreen TVs, full screen modifications are less common) Colorization Soundtracks for silent films These can be full described based on standardized data (although for the silent film soundtracks, this would involve multiple pieces of information, i.e., musical work, composer, conductor, performer(s), etc.) DVD often contain what essentially are multiple expressions in that they offer multiple soundtrack and subtitle options and may offer multiple aspect ratios. A silent film on DVD may come with alternate soundtracks. All of these can be combined in various ways by the viewer, which can make for a large number of expressions contained in a single manifestation. 2. Named expressions These are versions that are different in moving image content due to have been edited differently. Examples include Theatrical release Director's cut Unrated version Although Martha Yee found a strong correlation between differences in duration and the likelihood that two things represented two different expressions, this doesn't always work. The archetypical example of Blade Runner was released on DVD with five different versions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_of_Blade_Runner), all of which had run times within
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Kelley, do you have somewhere documentation on which properties/attributes are associated with each FRBR entity? I ask this in part out of my ignorance of moving image cataloging, and therefore I am having trouble translating from the FRBR documentation to what appears in your prototype. I did my usual search on seven samurai and the display (which I assume represents the Work) reads (in part): Alternate Title: Seven Samurai Director: Kurosawa, Akira, 1910-1998 Genres: Feature; Fiction; Drama; Language: Japanese Country: Japan Original Aspect: Full screen ( 1.37:1 ) Run Time: 206 Color: BW Sound: Sound I'm curious as to which are Work attributes and which are Expression attributes. Also, is there an example that shows one work and multiple expressions? kc Quoting Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu: OLAC (Online Audiovisual Catalogers) is excited to announce the availability of our prototype for a FRBR-inspired, work-centric, faceted discovery interface for moving images at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com. The OLAC Work-Centric Moving Image Discovery Interface Prototype is an exploration of the possibilities of leveraging the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model and faceted search to improve access to moving image materials held by libraries and archives. This prototype was funded by OLAC. Chris Fitzpatrick developed the demonstration interface to meet OLAC’s specifications using the free open source tools Ruby on Rails, Solr, and the Blacklight and Hydra plug-ins. This project was only possible due to the contributions of a great many people, some of whom are listed at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/credits. In this demonstration interface we present the user with a two-level view inspired by the FRBR model. The top level, labeled Movie or Program, provides information about the FRBR Work and what we are calling the Primary Expression, usually the first publicly-released Expression. Facets for the Work/Primary Expression level are displayed across the top of the screen and the records found in the hit list contain information about the Work and Primary Expression. The second level, labeled Version, includes information about Expressions (language options), Manifestations (format and publication date), and in a very basic way about Items (what libraries or archives hold a particular Manifestation). Facets for the Version level are displayed separately on the side of the screen and information about the particular Versions that meet the user’s qualifications are displayed below each Work/Primary Expression. An overview of the goals of the interface is available at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/about. Some suggested sample searches and potential use cases may be seen at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/samples. We invite you to check it out and send us your feedback. Comments, questions, complaints, and suggestions may be sent to me at kell...@uoregon.edu. Also, if you are interested in contributing to a larger grant project to try to bring this idea into a production environment, please contact me. Kelley McGrath Metadata Management Librarian University of Oregon kell...@uoregon.edu -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
Karen, The summary of the task group's work at http://olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/archived_docs/MIW_summary.pdf may provide some of the information you are looking for. Matthew -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:04 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface Kelley, do you have somewhere documentation on which properties/attributes are associated with each FRBR entity? I ask this in part out of my ignorance of moving image cataloging, and therefore I am having trouble translating from the FRBR documentation to what appears in your prototype. I did my usual search on seven samurai and the display (which I assume represents the Work) reads (in part): Alternate Title: Seven Samurai Director: Kurosawa, Akira, 1910-1998 Genres: Feature; Fiction; Drama; Language: Japanese Country: Japan Original Aspect: Full screen ( 1.37:1 ) Run Time: 206 Color: BW Sound: Sound I'm curious as to which are Work attributes and which are Expression attributes. Also, is there an example that shows one work and multiple expressions? kc Quoting Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu: OLAC (Online Audiovisual Catalogers) is excited to announce the availability of our prototype for a FRBR-inspired, work-centric, faceted discovery interface for moving images at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com. The OLAC Work-Centric Moving Image Discovery Interface Prototype is an exploration of the possibilities of leveraging the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model and faceted search to improve access to moving image materials held by libraries and archives. This prototype was funded by OLAC. Chris Fitzpatrick developed the demonstration interface to meet OLAC’s specifications using the free open source tools Ruby on Rails, Solr, and the Blacklight and Hydra plug-ins. This project was only possible due to the contributions of a great many people, some of whom are listed at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/credits. In this demonstration interface we present the user with a two-level view inspired by the FRBR model. The top level, labeled Movie or Program, provides information about the FRBR Work and what we are calling the Primary Expression, usually the first publicly-released Expression. Facets for the Work/Primary Expression level are displayed across the top of the screen and the records found in the hit list contain information about the Work and Primary Expression. The second level, labeled Version, includes information about Expressions (language options), Manifestations (format and publication date), and in a very basic way about Items (what libraries or archives hold a particular Manifestation). Facets for the Version level are displayed separately on the side of the screen and information about the particular Versions that meet the user’s qualifications are displayed below each Work/Primary Expression. An overview of the goals of the interface is available at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/about. Some suggested sample searches and potential use cases may be seen at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/samples. We invite you to check it out and send us your feedback. Comments, questions, complaints, and suggestions may be sent to me at kell...@uoregon.edu. Also, if you are interested in contributing to a larger grant project to try to bring this idea into a production environment, please contact me. Kelley McGrath Metadata Management Librarian University of Oregon kell...@uoregon.edu -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface
The OLAC task group appears to be hewing closer to FRBR-∞ rather than Entity/Relation definitions in the IFLA FRBR report. The strict FRBR-ER model is not really usable, as the boundaries between entity classes are not rigorously drawn, and the model makes some ontological commitments that may not be desirable (for example, if Manifestations are physical, Items must be detached manifestation parts, or manifestation must be a substance). It's best to treat the IFLA report as an inspiring metaphor, rather than as literal truth... The approach that OLAC is following seems to be inspired by Martha Yee's model of Near Equivalents; e.g. Yee (1994). Near equivalency very roughly corresponds to two items being close enough to one another to be satisfy a particular need. Confusingly, Yee's use of *Manifestation* predates the FRBR report, and more closely corresponds to FRBR Expressions than to FRBR Manifestations. Yee's and Tillet's approaches *are* based on the same Principles (Svenonnites? Lubetskavitchers?). [Checking the link that Matthew posted, I see that Yee was an advisor to the OLAC task force]. Near-Equivalents might be thought of in terms of relative identity, with fewer properties being held in common between as one moves from items to works. A manifestation could be considered to be an abstraction of items that ignores properties related to the specific physical particular (such as being made of the same atoms, or being at a specific place at a particular time). Relative Identity does allow for a consistent interpretation of I/M/E/W but is thought by some to be too far from FRBR to be applicable,in addition to having foundational objections to non-absolute identity (Allen Renear and Karen Wickett at UIUC have strong views on that score) It's also possible that Near Equivalency could be relative to a specific patron and task. It's not inconceivable that individual properties could be used to aggregate results or narrow result sets, Simon Yee, Martha M (1994). Manifestations and Near-Equivalents: Theory, with Special Attention to Moving-Image Materialshttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/1541x7fz. Library Resources Technical Services; 38:227-256. On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Beacom, Matthew matthew.bea...@yale.eduwrote: Karen, The summary of the task group's work at http://olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/archived_docs/MIW_summary.pdf may provide some of the information you are looking for. Matthew -Original Message- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:04 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Announcing OLAC's prototype FRBR-inspired moving image discovery interface Kelley, do you have somewhere documentation on which properties/attributes are associated with each FRBR entity? I ask this in part out of my ignorance of moving image cataloging, and therefore I am having trouble translating from the FRBR documentation to what appears in your prototype. I did my usual search on seven samurai and the display (which I assume represents the Work) reads (in part): Alternate Title: Seven Samurai Director: Kurosawa, Akira, 1910-1998 Genres: Feature; Fiction; Drama; Language: Japanese Country: Japan Original Aspect: Full screen ( 1.37:1 ) Run Time: 206 Color: BW Sound: Sound I'm curious as to which are Work attributes and which are Expression attributes. Also, is there an example that shows one work and multiple expressions? kc Quoting Kelley McGrath kell...@uoregon.edu: OLAC (Online Audiovisual Catalogers) is excited to announce the availability of our prototype for a FRBR-inspired, work-centric, faceted discovery interface for moving images at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com. The OLAC Work-Centric Moving Image Discovery Interface Prototype is an exploration of the possibilities of leveraging the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model and faceted search to improve access to moving image materials held by libraries and archives. This prototype was funded by OLAC. Chris Fitzpatrick developed the demonstration interface to meet OLAC’s specifications using the free open source tools Ruby on Rails, Solr, and the Blacklight and Hydra plug-ins. This project was only possible due to the contributions of a great many people, some of whom are listed at http://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/page/credits. In this demonstration interface we present the user with a two-level view inspired by the FRBR model. The top level, labeled Movie or Program, provides information about the FRBR Work and what we are calling the Primary Expression, usually the first publicly-released Expression. Facets for the Work/Primary Expression level are displayed across the top of the screen and the records found in the hit list contain information about the Work
