Cataloging Futures

Updated FRBR and some thoughts on "expression"

Another interesting cataloging news item is that there's an updated version of FRBR now available online. On the FRBR discussion list, John Hostage writes:

The full text of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) incorporating the amended definition of the expression entity as well as the errata identified to date has been made available on IFLANET in both PDF and HTML formats. [emphasis mine]

For the first time, the HTML versions of both the current text and the original 1998 text include the tables, rather than just references to the PDF version.

So what about this amended definition of "expression"? The way I understand it the expression entity is less hard and fast in its definition. There seems to more room for interpretation as to what constitutes a new expression. Here's part of the revised text:

Inasmuch as the form of expression is an inherent characteristic of the expression, any change in form (e.g., from alpha-numeric notation to spoken word) results in a new expression. Similarly, changes in the intellectual conventions or instruments that are employed to express a work (e.g., translation from one language to another) result in the production of a new expression. If a text is revised or modified, the resulting expression is considered to be a new expression.Minor changes, such as corrections of spelling and punctuation, etc., may be considered as variations within the same expression. [emphasis mine]

On a practical level, the degree to which bibliographic distinctions are made between variant expressions of a work will depend to some extent on the nature of the work itself, and on the anticipated needs of users and on what the cataloguer can reasonably be expected to recognize from the manifestation being described.

Barbara Tillett on RDA and FRBR

Yesterday on the FRBR discussion list, Arlene Taylor writes:

Barbara Tillett has updated the RDA section of her chapter in the book _Understanding FRBR_ that I edited. Her updated section is now available at http://lu.com/FRBR/

Due to publishing schedules, the section published in the book reflected the way RDA was shaping up prior to the October changes that now more clearly show the relationship of RDA to FRBR.

You'll want to read Tillett's short, informative overview of RDA development and its relation to the FRBR model. Here's a section on the JSC work leading up to Resource Description and Access (RDA):

A "Format Variations Working Group" was formed to look at FRBR's relationship to the new rules. Jennifer Bowen chaired this group. One member, Pat Riva from Canada, took her sabbatical to analyze where FRBR terminology might be substituted in the AACR2 rules. Among the recommendations was to use the term resource to be an overarching word to express the materials in a library's collection or things that would be part of the greater bibliographic universe. Another recommendation was to use only the FRBR terms when they accurately reflected the intention of the rule. The Working Group also recommended a structure for uniform titles that builds on the identification of the work, then the expression, then the manifestation, and finally the item, through added data elements as needed. If one needs to cite a work, then only the work elements need be included. If one needs to point to a specific item, then the full string including elements to identify the specific item are included.

Reading RDA: a few comments and questions

I've read most of the recently released RDA drafts and sent comments in for the constituent review. I'm fully behind moving forward with RDA development and I'm anxious to see the complete draft due out this summer. Here's are a few general thoughts and questions about the latest drafts, RDA, section 2-4, 9 that were issued in December 2007:

• In general, catalogers familiar with AACR2 are going to get confused deciding when something is a “work” and when something is an “expression.” Even though these terms are defined in rule 5.1.1 there is the conceptual problem of never having had to think about these entities that much before, especially expression. This will be a important area for RDA implementation.
• The new organization of RDA chops up the rules putting them into many different chapters. Again, rather than simplifying the rules this adds complexity. Consider collapsing some of the chapters, e.g., chapters 5, 6, and 7 could be collapsed. As RDA gets revised I hope complexity is checked. Let's keep it when necessary, but prefer to simplify and streamline the new code when possible.
• Does the new organization of RDA lock catalogers, et al. into one conceptual model—FRBR? Also, does the new organization locks the user of RDA into one interpretation of FRBR?
• Some of the language used in these rules is so precise and technical because of the strict application of FRBR concepts and terminology. The rules force the users to think in terms of work, expression, manifestation, and item at every turn. Does RDA have to be so closely tied to FRBR? Can the rules be more open to other conceptual models?
• More emphasis should be placed on flexibility in applying the level of detail in RDA. I don’t see enough of this type of guidance in the current drafts. Catalogers and metadata librarians should feel free to apply as much or as little of the RDA rules as they need.

Testing FRBR?

Really interesting reading the last 2 weeks since the LC working group released their interim draft report. There's been a lot of talk on the cataloging discussion lists and in the blogosphere about the seemingly contentious section 4.2, "Realization of FRBR":

1. Develop test plan for FRBR
2. Temporarily suspend work on RDA

One example of testing that's already been done on FRBR is described in an excellent article by Jennifer Bowen, FRBR: Coming Soon to Your Library? [pdf] Part of the article describes testing done by the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (JSC) on the FRBR group 1 entity expression. The JSC's Format Variation Working Group (FVWG) was charged to work on this issue and tests were carried out.

FVWG’s first terms of reference asked the group to investigate the feasibility of creating catalog records at the level of the FRBR Group 1 entity expression, rather than at the level of the entity manifestation, as is the current practice for most library cataloging. In order to assess the practicality of such a dramatic change to current cataloging practice, the working group undertook an experiment to create catalog records for expressions that exist in multiple manifestations.

RDA Takes FRBR Seriously: Revised Chapter 7

The new revised RDA draft of chapter 7 [PDF], Related Resources, provides guidelines for recording how resources are related. The chapter is structured using Barbara Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships and FRBR group 1 entities: work, expression, manifestation, and item. Relationships are recorded in 4 ways:

1. Resource identifiers
2. Naming (using controlled access points)
3. Describing using a structured description (What we use to call a "formal contents note.")
4. Describing using an unstructured, informal description (What we use to call an "informal contents note" or a bibliographic history note, etc.)

This is a very important chapter and a necessary development for RDA. The only problem is the chapter rules are written in a confusing, convoluted style which make them sound more complicated than they really are. It gets away from one of the early goal for RDA: simplify the rules. While this chapter does apply FRBR concepts, I'm afraid they add a layer of complexity that catalogers and metadata librarians will get bogged down in. I had the same problem with the  revised RDA draft of chapter 3. I think the last 3 revised RDA drafts, chapters 3, 6, and 7, are more complex than they need to be. I'm not saying that cataloging is not complex and intellectually demanding, it is. I just think the rules could be written in a simpler, more straightforward style and still present the same information.

RDA Takes FRBR Seriously: Revised Chapter 6

I've been reading the RDA drafts [PDF], but I'm no expert. So, my viewpoint reflects a background as a cataloger well versed in AACR2 and a cataloging manager who's done some staff training. (And I'm definitely no FRBR expert.) But I have read these drafts carefully and do have a opinion.

• Issued in June 2007, this new revised draft contains chapter 6 and 7. The subject of each chapter has been reversed since last year's version.
• The revised chapter 6, Persons, Families, and Corporate Bodies Associated with a Resource, is sort of a replacement for AACR2 chapter 21 without prescribing "main entry" (which is being reserved for a later chapter and will now be called "primary access point").
• So, this chapter tells catalogers and metadata librarians which access points to use for certain types of resources.
• It's thoroughly FRBRized.
• Unfortunately, a heavy handed application of the FRBR conceptual model gives this chapter (and chapter 7) a theoretical tone. It's hard to wade through and may be hard to apply on a day-to-day basis for cataloging/metadata creation.
• I don't think this is a problem applying FRBR. It's more of a problem with chapter organization and writing style.
  

I'm really trying to keep an open mind with regard to RDA. I do see the benefit of a revised content standard for digital resources and non-MARC metadata, but I think it still needs work. Some rewording in simple, concise language would be a good place to start. (I honestly think AACR2's structure makes more sense as a practical cataloging tool. I'm not convinced it's structure could not have accommodated a multiplicity of digital resources. But there's no going back at this point. The RDA AACR2 horse is out of the barn.)

Upcoming Posts: RDA Takes FRBR Seriously

I've been hip deep in the new revised RDA draft of part A, chapters 6-7 and  FRBR and have not come up for air to write any intelligible posts!   Just wanted to give a heads up. I'll try to do a series of posts on this new RDA draft and its implementation of FRBR entities. So, look for more next week!

Essential Reading: New FRBR Books

Over on William Denton's excellent FRBR Blog, he mentions that 2 new books are coming out this fall on FRBR!

• Maxwell, Robert L. FRBR: A Guide for the Perplexed
• Taylor, Arlene G. Understanding FRBR: What It Is and How It Will Affect Our Retrieval Tools

I'm very excited about tackling these 2 books when they come out. I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with FRBR (which maybe I'll try to unpack someday on this blog). In 2004 I (insanely) offered to give an introductory presentation on FRBR, so I really dug in and studied it. But that was 3 years ago. Recently I dusted off FRBR and started to revisited it while reading the new FRBRized RDA draft (that's another post coming soon). Anyway, I'm definitely adding to my future of cataloging to-do list: Study FRBR (and hopefully learn to love it!)