Practical FRBR Kathryn Lybarger University of Kentucky RDA

Practical FRBR Kathryn Lybarger University of Kentucky RDA Camp 2013 Preliminary session

Dublin Core ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Title Creator Subject Description Publisher Contributor Date ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Format Identifier Source Language Relation Coverage Rights Type All elements are optional and repeatable.

A sample Dublin Core record

A sample Dublin Core record Title: The Callahan Chronicals Creator: Spider Robinson Date: 1997 Date: 1977 Date: May 19, 2000 Language: American

A sample Dublin Core record Title: The Callahan Chronicals Creator: Spider Robinson Publisher: Tor Date: 1997 Language: English Type: Text Format: text Identifier: ISBN 0812539370

Why are these not useful? ▪ Some fields should be required ▪ Some fields should not be repeatable ▪ Fields should be entered in a consistent format ▪ Some fields should be from a standard vocabulary ▪ (It’s hard to ingest a Power. Point slide into your ILS)

Dublin Core in Kentucky Digital Library ▪ Dublin Core is the core of its metadata ▪ Accepts data / metadata submissions from all over the state ▪ Not enough time / subject expertise to do all description here ▪ Guidelines describe specifics of metadata that should be provided

KDL Guidelines: Which elements? Required fields must be submitted in order for content to be ingested: ▪ format ▪ language ▪ Kentucky-specific subject ▪ resource type ▪ rights ▪ title Required if available: ▪ creator ▪ date ▪ source Other elements (EAD): ▪ biography/history ▪ scope and content ▪ arrangement

KDL Guidelines: Format/Vocabulary ▪ Date: To enhance discoverability and automated maintenance processes, KDL requires the use of ISO 8601 for the entry of the most date fields; in other words, KDL uses the standard form of YYYYMM-DD. This is used in Date, Terminal Date, Date Range Start and Date Range End fields. ▪ Language ▪ Scheme: ISO 639 ▪ Examples: en, es

KDL Guidelines: How to encode? ▪ Submit fields through online form ▪ Type with a certain format ▪ Choose vocabulary from a pulldown menu ▪ METS template ▪ Framework with descriptive elements / files ▪ Block of Dublin Core according to guidelines

Data Model + Application Profile ▪ Dublin Core is a data model ▪ Elements / Entities ▪ Relationships ▪ Kentucky Digital Library has an application profile ▪ ▪ ▪ Which elements are used Which elements are required Which elements are repeatable Value restrictions – Format? Vocabularies? How to encode in a standard way? (any extras added? )

FRBR + RDA ▪ Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) ▪ Data model ▪ Entities ▪ Relationships ▪ Resource Description and Access (RDA) ▪ ▪ Application profile for FRBR Which elements are required (“Core”) How should values be recorded/transcribed? How should records be encoded?

Why bother with a profile? ▪ Why not just implement and index all fields and relationships? ▪ FRBR is HUGE ▪ Recording everything would take forever ▪ Elements can be recorded in different ways

Must specify and prioritize with an eye to: ▪ Find ▪ Identify ▪ Select ▪ Obtain

Find ▪ Find involves meeting a user’s search criteria through an attribute or a relationship of an entity. This can be seen to combine both the traditional “find” and “collocate” objectives of a catalog. ▪ When a patron enters something sensible, they should find (at least) the title they are looking for ▪ Once they have found something good, similar things should be one step away

Identify ▪ Identify enables a user to confirm they have found what they looked for, distinguishing among similar resources. ▪ A researcher should be able to work from a citation and find the original resource ▪ A copy cataloger should be confident they have found the right record

Select ▪ Select involves meeting a user’s requirements with respect to content, physical format, etc. or to reject an entity that doesn’t meet the user’s needs. ▪ Is the novel in English? Is it in large print? ▪ Is the movie on DVD or VHS? ▪ Is it a basic math text, or research level?

Obtain ▪ Obtain enables a user to acquire an entity through purchase, loan, etc. , or electronic remote access. ▪ Online resource records should include working links to the resource ▪ Physical items should have a call number

Why FRBR? (Simpler? ) AACR 2 (ISBD) Area 3 Area 5 Area 4 Area 7 Area 1 Area 6 Area 8 MARC FRBR Area 2 W E M I MARC

FRBR model is more complex Work Expression Manifestation Item

FRBR allows more relationships Work Expression Manifestation Item

MANY more relationships (only some reciprocal) Group 2 Entity Person Group 1 Entity W • … E • … M • … Group 2 Entity Group 3 Entity Corporate Body Subject Group 1 Entity W • … E • … M • …

Many works have only one expression and manifestation Work Expression Manifestation • Preferred title of the work • Date of work • … • Language of expression • Date of expression • … • Edition statement • Copyright date • …

A work might have two expressions W • Holes • 1998 E • English • 1998 E • Spanish • 2001 M • First edition • 1998 M • 10 th edition • 2001

An expression might have two manifestations W E M • The Wizard of Oz • 1939 • English • 1939 • Special Edition • 1999 W E M • The Wizard of Oz • 1939 • English • 1939 • 75 th Anniversary Edition • 2013

In a FRBR catalog… W E M • The Wizard of Oz • 1939 • English • 1939 • Special Edition • 1999 embodies M • 75 th Anniversary Edition • 2013

FRBRization? ▪ Many catalogs now claim to do “FRBRization”, but… ▪ “FRBR is a matter of display, so it will be handled by the discovery layer. ”—An ILS vendor ▪ Manifestation records are identified as being the same work, and displayed as such in search results

Automatically detect relationships? ▪ Uniform titles might help us identify expressions of the same work ▪ Author + Title might help us identify manifestations of the same expression ▪ So we can do some grouping.

Related works? ▪ Sequels/Prequels? ▪ Dramatizations? ▪ Adaptations? ▪ Analysis? ▪ Whole/Part relationships? ▪ Preceding/Succeeding titles?

Relationships: Single MARC fields ▪ Preceding/Succeeding titles ▪ 780 00 ‡t Citizen (Berea, Ky. ) ‡w (DLC)sn 85052076 ▪ 785 00 ‡t Berea citizen ‡w (DLC)sn 85052075 ‡w (OCo. LC)12249111 ▪ Other forms ▪ 776 08 ‡i Online version: ‡a Amodio, Mark. ‡t Anglo- Saxon literature handbook ‡d Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons Inc. , 2014 ‡z 9781118286494 ‡w (DLC) 2013005429

Relationships: More MARC fields ▪ Translations ▪ 041 1_ ‡a chi ǂh eng ▪ 240 10 ‡a臨濟錄. ǂl English ▪ 500 __ ‡a Translation from the Chinese ▪ Whole/part ▪ 100 1_ ‡a Pokras, Barbara. ▪ 245 10 ‡a Feeding Mrs. Moskowitz / ‡c Barbara Pokras. The caregiver / Fran Pokras Yariv. ▪ 700 12 ‡a Yariv, Fran Pokras. ‡t Caregiver. ▪ 740 02 ‡a Caregiver.

Relationships: MARC notes fields ▪ Based on: ▪ 245 10 ‡a West Side story. ▪ 500 __ ‡a Based on: Romeo and Juliet / William Shakespeare. ▪ Remake of: ▪ 245 10 ‡a Gaslight / ǂc Loew's Incorporated ; directed by George Cukor … ▪ 500 __ ‡a Remake of the 1939 motion picture, Gaslight.

RDA provides more structure for recording relationships ▪ Between works: ▪ 245 10 ‡a Nightlight / the Harvard Lampoon. ▪ 700 1_ ‡i Parody of (work) : ‡a Meyer, Stephenie, ‡d 1973 - ‡t Twilight ‡w (DLC)2004024730 ▪ Between expressions: ▪ 245 00 ‡a Total recall / ‡c Columbia Pictures … ▪ 730 0_ ‡i Remake of (expression) : ‡a Total recall (Motion picture : 1990) ‡w (OCo. LC)247127957 ▪ Relationship designators are from an established vocabulary

Relationship designators have associated URIs ▪ URI = Uniform Resource Identifier ▪ Looks like a URL ▪ May or may not go to a live web page ▪ Parody of (work) ▪ http: //rdvocab. info/RDARelationships. WEMI/parody. Of. W ork ▪ Remake of (expression) ▪ http: //rdvocab. info/RDARelationships. WEMI/remake. Of. Ex pression

URIs in a Linked Data environment ▪ If we could control relationships like headings: 700 1 ‡i Parody of (work) : ‡a Meyer, Stephenie, ‡d 1973 - ‡t Twilight ‡w (DLC)2004024730 ▪ (actually storing the URI instead of the label text) ▪ Localization is moved to display ▪ English catalogs could display the English label ▪ German catalogs could display the German label ▪ No parallel records would be needed – we could use the same records!

What is being linked? ▪ Some relationship designators refer explicitly to links between works or expressions ▪ It seems weird to use them to link manifestation records ▪ It is probably not harmful; ambiguous terms are qualified ▪ Form of work: novel, play, map, sonata ▪ Form of expression: musical notation, musical sound ▪ Form of carrier: sound cassette, videodisc ▪ Shouldn’t works and expressions have their own records with identifiers?

How does FRBR help us now? ▪ Some systems are using FRBR concepts (Open Library) ▪ We could derive new records with selected fields ▪ RDA Toolkit is organized by FRBR entities and relationships

References ▪ Barbara Tillett. What is FRBR? A conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. http: //www. loc. gov/cds/downloads/FRBR. PDF ▪ IFLA. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records http: //www. ifla. org/publications/functionalrequirements-for-bibliographic-records ▪ The RDA (Resource Description and Access) Vocabularies (open metadata registry) http: //rdvocab. info/

FRBR Craft Time!