conceptual models: museums & libraries towards an object-oriented formulation of frbr aligned on...

Conceptual models: museums & libraries

towards an object-oriented formulation of FRBR aligned on the CIDOC CRM ontology

Maja Žumer (University of Ljubljana) & Patrick Le Bœuf (National Library of France)ELAG 2006 “New tools and new library practices”Bucharest, 26 April 2006

2

FRBR: the conceptual model for libraries

(Quite familiar to ELAGers! Regular workshops 1998-2003) “FRBR” is for “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic

Records” Developed 1991-1997 & published 1998 by IFLA

(International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions)

Maintained by the IFLA FRBR Review Group Covers “bibliographic records” and “headings” for library

materials: “textual, music, cartographic, audio-visual, graphic, three-dimensional materials”

3

Key concepts of FRBR

Expression

Manifestation

Item

Work

Event

Place

Object

Concept

Corporate Body

Person

4

CIDOC CRM: the conceptual model for museums (introduced to ELAGers by Nick Crofts at ELAG 2000) “CRM” is for “Conceptual Reference Model” Developed from 1996 on by ICOM CIDOC (International

Council of Museums – International Committee for Documentation)

Maintained by CRM-SIG (Special Interest Group) About to be validated as ISO 21127 Covers any kind of data (“descriptive” or “authorities”)

created by museums in the fields of fine arts, archaeology, natural history…

5

Key concepts of CIDOC CRM

Event

What happened?

Involving whom?

Involving what?

When? Where?

Actor

ActorAppellation

PhysicalThing

Appellation

Time-Span

TimeAppellation

Place

PlaceAppellation

ConceptualObject

Of what

?Type

6

FRBR/CRM Harmonisation Group

formed 2003gathers representatives for & corresponding

members of: the IFLA FRBR Review Group the CRM Special Interest Group

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

7

To what purpose harmonise FRBR & CIDOC CRM? To reach a common view of cultural heritage information

(because we share users and types of materials) To check FRBR’s internal consistency To enable interoperability and integration (mediation tools,

Semantic Web applications…) For FRBR’s and CIDOC CRM’s mutual benefit (to extend

the scope of both) Also, differing (but compatible) views:

Maja: to help design better rules to create new records and make better catalogues in the future

Patrick: to extract the semantic meaning of existing records in ontology-driven applications

8

Methodology

6 meetings so far Detailed reports not yet publicly available What we do at those meetings:

‘translate’ FRBR entities and attributes into an OO model which borrows as much as possible from CIDOC CRM and sometimes also gives back to CIDOC CRM

Some principles: Take a user (or use)-centered approach! Too many attributes? Then the entity is not a primitive concept

but a complex elaboration Split the entity! A given attribute actually refers to an event? (e.g., “date”)

Make the event explicit!

9

Consequences of FRBR/CRM harmonisation

Re-examination of entities (work, expression, manifestation)

Review of attributes

10

Work

FRBR: intellectual or artistic creationcommon content of expressions

FRBRoo:Individual work, Complex work, Publisher

work, Container workModeling of creation process

11

Expression

Clear in FRBR after the new definition

FRBRoo: ExpressionFragment

12

“Dual nature” of manifestation in FRBR

A single physical exemplar: physical object“In some cases there may be only a single physical exemplar

produced of that manifestation of the work (an author’s manuscript, a tape recorded for an oral history archive, an original oil painting, etc.)”

Multiple copies for public dissemination or distribution: an abstract notion

Formal production process Limited number of copies for private study or preservation

“Whether the scope of production is broad or limited, the SET of copies produced in each case constitutes a manifestation.”

13

Proposal

Those two ‘types’ of manifestation are not equal, so we propose two distinct entities:

Manifestation singletonManifestation product type

They are different by nature and have different attributes, different relationships

14

Attributes in FRBRDerived from analysis of data typically reflected in bibliographic

recordsThe principal sources: ISBDs Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries (GARE) Guidelines for Subject Authority and Reference Entries (GSARE) UNIMARC Manual

“Comprehensive but not exhaustive”

“Attributes defined at logical level (as viewed by a user, rather than specific data elements defined by catalogers):

Individual data elements Aggregate of discrete data elements (e.g. title of manifestation)”

15

QuestionsAttributes were defined from existing

cataloguing practice and mapped to user functions later.

Are some attributes missing? Shouldn’t attributes be defined from the

analysis of functions and entities? Are electronic resources appropriately

dealt with?

16

Proposal

A review of attributesBased on user functions and specific

needs within functionsInclude electronic resources

In principle agreed within FRBR Review Group

17

What next? Group 2, Group 3, FRAR and FRSAR attributes FRBR, FRAR & FRSAR relationships Review the overall picture (some attributes were

postponed, some new concepts need clarification) Check the robustness Draft deliverables: scope notes and examples for

each class & property, tutorials, explanatory documents…

Prepare a prototype application = 2 years of work??

18

A quote from my favourite book

Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it. And then he feels that perhaps there isn’t... (A.A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner)

19

So:

Let us think...

...and find another way: FRBR