So, this is a tempest in a tea-pot, but let me explain my point before
you all think I'm mad.
First, FRBR is a very useful model. Some abstractions are useful, and
FRBR—and other "work" models, such as LibraryThing's—are useful.
My point is this. FRBR is a binary model, defining largely binary,
clear-cut relationships between things. In the real world,
relationships are often more complex. And the relationships we want to
see are as much about what we're looking for as about what "really"
is. This becomes much clearer when you think of book data as larger
than librarianship. A collector, for example, will organize works and
manifestations very differently from a librarian.
David Weinberger did an excellent illustration of this phenomenon,
"Miscellaneous Hamlet" on his blog (
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/miscellaneous_hamlet.html ).
As he notes, there is no "real" Hamlet. Every edition is a compromise
between three imperfect sources. Every edition is an conversation
between the editor and the sources. Much the same is true of most of
Greek and Latin literature. How many texts are in a text, the
relationships between texts, the authors of text are essentially
*conversations*. When you scratch the surface, the easy verities of
"work" vanish.
Another good illustration is what goes on on LibraryThing. People
argue about what works should be combined all the time. In part,
LibraryThing's model is more simple than FRBR. But it also happens
because there is no final answer. The way we lump and split is as much
about us and what we're trying to do as it is about the world. (Note:
LibraryThing still has a binary model of relationships; I don't have
the answer!)
FRBR is a great model. If every library catalog were FRBRized, the
world would be a better place. It makes a lot of sense. But the model
is too often taken as the goal. FRBR is an advance, but there may well
be better ways—more wholeheartedly digital ways—of allowing users to
navigate the relationships that matter to them.
The situation is not unlike subject headings, another binary system of
clear-cut relationships rooted in the physical world. Subject systems
like LCSH are a big improvement over their alternative—big piles of
books or a single-topic shelving system. But a system of buckets has
inherent limitations. In the real world, "aboutness" is at least a
percentage, not a boolean. There are no perfect answers, but again and
again, systems that embrace this complexity (eg., Google) are
producing better results than ones that don't (the Yahoo directory).
I'm not sure what the answer is, but someone needs to try a "fuzzy
FRBR." Even if the set remains the same, there are weaker and stronger
relationships within it. Something like LibraryThing's thingISBN or
OCLC's xISBN service is already inherently statistical—complex,
forgiving pattern matching on huge sets of data. As David Weinberger
writes, xISBN and thingISBN have an "acknowledged degree of
fuzziness." But we lie. We hide the fuzziness. We turn our
well-informed guesses into true or false statements. That's useful in
some contexts, but it's not the whole story.
Finally, when you speak of tags on item and tags on works, it drifts
away from what makes tagging good. Users tag because it's quick,
almost thoughtless. The way you see it is the way you tag it. For the
idea to be useful, it would need to be implemented. That means telling
users to tag some things in one box and other things in another. Users
don't want to be information professionals.
Tim
On 2/26/07, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
> Tim Spalding wrote:
> > I think there's a sort of misplaced Platonism in this concept. (This
> > is also my problem with FRBR.) There is no "Price and Prejudice" in
> > the sky, only copies situated in the real world.
> I find it useful to think of FRBR in terms of set theory to get away
> from this 'misplaced Platonism'. (This was/is Elaine Svenonius's
> pre-FRBR suggestion). A work can be understood as the set of all
> manifestations. (Well, really, work is a set of all relevant
> expressions, expression is a set of all relevant manifestations,
> manifestation is a set of relevant all items). ---it's of course only
> the item that exists physically in the real world, the rest are
> abstractions. But abstractions can be very useful.
>
> The FRBR model allows us to say that some attributes belong to these
> _sets_. There is no "price and prejudice in the sky", but there are some
> attributes (and tags) that apply to the entire set of items belonging to
> "Pride and Prejudice"; others that belong only to the entire set of
> items representing a particular expression of "Price and Prejudice";
> others that belong only to the entire set of items representing a
> particular manifestation---and others applying only to a particular item
> (or item(s) that do not comprise the entire manifestation set).
>
> I think this is a very useful model, even though all the entities but
> "item" are abstract. I agree that I don't like the "platonistic"
> connotations, but you can avoid them by thinking in terms of set theory.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > "At mum's house" and
> > "Victorian" may divide alone item/work, but what about "English
> > class"? (The latter is very personal, but the physicality isn't
> > important--maybe you lost your copy and got a new one.) Ultimately,
> > all tags, even subject ones, are about how we see the world. That how
> > we see the world individually "rolls up" into some larger,
> > transferable meaning is only surprising if you don't realize it's how
> > everything else--excluding marooned sailors--also works.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > On 2/23/07, HAZEL Margaret E <margaret.e.hazel_at_ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
> >> I don't know, I'd be interested to know what individuals consider
> >> "comfort books", personally. Though I do agree that where it is in the
> >> house, or the fact that the main character reminds you of an ex, ought
> >> to be personal.
> >> -Margaret
> >>
> >> Margaret E. Hazel
> >> Eugene Public Library
> >> Eugene, OR
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> >> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah Kaplan
> >> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:24 AM
> >> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> >> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Book tagging: Amazon and LibraryThing
> >>
> >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Tim Spalding wrote:
> >> > >Social tagging:
> >> >
> >> > This is a big and interesting topic. Here's $.02.
> >> >
> >> > There's a balance between selfish and altruistic, and some gradients
> >> > in between, like when a member of a church tags things for the benefit
> >>
> >> > of a small group. There is also, if not an incentive to tag
> >> > altruistically, something of a desire not to appear a fool. I see this
> >>
> >> > on LT all the time. Everyone's tags are public, so people are
> >> > conscious to note that that Ann Coulter book was a gift. Or, take my
> >> > brother (please!), who tags his small collection of semi-erotica
> >> > "sex!" Wink wink nudge nudge.
> >>
> >> This is actually a limitation in the current concept of social tagging,
> >> to me. On LibraryThing, for example, I want to tag my books in a way
> >> that will be useful to the larger social tagging
> >> pool: "fiction", perhaps, or "cyberpunk". But I also want to tag them in
> >> ways which will be useful to me: "gift from mum", "on the shelf in the
> >> dining room", "chewed on by a cat". Out of all of those, I can only see
> >> "gift from mum" potentially being something which adds to the social
> >> tagging pool ("look, everybody's copies of _How to Become a Better
> >> Daughter in 90 Days_ is tagged 'gift from mum' or some variant!"). But
> >> certainly all of those tags in the second set are what I would consider
> >> to be private. Nobody else's business but mine. Where books are laid out
> >> in my house, personal information about provenance or condition,
> >> statements about what they mean to me ("comfort book", for example).
> >>
> >> So because social tagging as a concept is social, it's designed as
> >> public. And therefore, because I desire to keep certain information
> >> private, I can't use it for personal cataloging.
> >> Since I can't make some tags private and viewable only to me, tags are
> >> limited in their functionality as cataloging tools. For me.
> >>
> >> -Deborah
> >> --
> >> Deborah Kaplan
> >> Digital Initiatives Librarian
> >> Brandeis University
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>
Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 09:57:59 EST