Wow. This is great stuff! (Gee, I haven't said that since a rock concert
in about 1972 ;-). My take on FRBR is that it's about relationships. The
problem is that it currently expresses a fairly narrow set of
relationships, and it presents those as linear:
work/expression/manifestation/item. Part of the reason for this is that
descriptive cataloging, by its nature, must focus on the "item in hand."
So FRBR is basically a road map leading to the item for the purposes of
descriptive cataloging. I'd like to explore more and other
relationships, ones that don't have to be "binary" or linear. In fact,
we do have relationships between expressions that are not subsumed under
the same work (translations of two different works by the same
translator). Manifestations are easily linked by publisher or series.
Karen Markey, in her recent D-Lib piece, states (and I'm paraphrasing
here to save time) that library cataloging has been so focused on
description that we've neglected a whole host of other activities that
would make our catalogs useful. So if we leave the linear
work/expression/manifestation/item line to descriptive cataloging,
(let's just assume that's been taken care of) we can put our energy into
the other relationships that help people navigate in the interconnected
but highly ambiguous information soup that we find ourselves in.
kc
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Tim Spalding wrote:
>> So, this is a tempest in a tea-pot, but let me explain my point before
>> you all think I'm mad.
>> 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.
> My understanding of the FRBR model, is that the FRBR model is perfectly
> happy with this state of affairs, and doesn't have any problem with
> it. The FRBR model doesn't require any particular expression to be the
> 'real', or even the verifiably 'first' expression (although, to be
> sure,) in _most_ cases there will be such, and it's likely useful to
> show the user this).
>
> FRBR says that each of those editions (or expressions or manifestations
> in FRBR, depending on what one means by 'edition') belongs to the Work
> "hamlet". It doesn't say that any of them has to be verifiable as the
> 'real' one. I think this is a misunderstanding of FRBR.
>
> Now, Tim talks about how FRBR is "binary". I'm not sure if Tim means to
> be saying that some edition isn't either a member of the work set for
> "Hamlet", or NOT a member---but is somehow "kind of" or "partially" a
> member. If you want to allow things to be "sort of kind of part of this
> work", then it's true that the FRBR model does NOT allow for that. So,
> yes, the FRBR model is 'binary'.
>
> On the other hand, if this were a useful thing to allow for (and it's
> not obvious to me that it is, but I wouldn't rule it out), I believe the
> FRBR model could easily be extended to allow for that. The contribution
> of the FRBR model is to explicate the four Group 1 entities---really,
> the contribution of the FRBR model is just to put the library
> communities _implicit_ shared mental model of the bibliographic universe
> down in a rigorous, explicit, formal way. The way it did that was with
> the four entities, which may not be perfect, but are a start.
>
> But to be sure, there can be reason to disagree with whether a given
> expression belongs to a given work, etc. Perhaps our systems need to
> accomodate this disagreement, perhaps not. I'm not convinced. But to
> argue about whether a given expression or manifestation belongs to a
> given work, you first need to agree on "work", "expression" and
> "manifestation" as concepts!
>
> I don't always understand Tim's oft-repeated criticisms of FRBR. I'm not
> sure if they are based on a misconception of FRBR or not. If you think
> that FRBR requires one expression of Hamlet to be the 'real'
> one---that's a misconception. On the other hand, if you think that FRBR
> requires every particular text to belong, unequivocably and 100%, to one
> and only one work---that's absolutely right. If you think that's a flaw,
> I believe the solution would be an extension or modification to the FRBR
> model--there's no reason you couldn't extend the FRBR model to allow an
> expression's relationship to a work to have a percentage assigned to it,
> and to belong to more than one work. That would make the systems for
> dealing with it a lot more complicated, and we still haven't even gotten
> systems which deal appropriately with 'simple FRBR', so I'd start with
> that, but no reason not think about or experiment with other things too.
>
> I suppose if you really thought the FRBR model was wholly unsuitable for
> modelling the bibliographic universe in a way that allowed us to capture
> data, to subsequently provide systems useful to our users----if you
> really thought that, then what you'd have to do is create a new model.
> (I personally don't think that, I think the FRBR model is not DONE yet,
> but is a fine starting point and does not need to be abandoned).
>
> What we can NOT do is go back to having NO rigorous, explicit, formal
> data model that we as a community use. The digital world demands a
> rigorous formal data model, it can not work on an implicit, sloppy,
> ambiguous, un-stated model like we de facto have now. This causes
> problems. If the FRBR model isn't sufficient, it must be improved or
> replaced. I suspect Tim, for instance, agrees with this---to folks from
> a digital metadata or general computer background like myself, it often
> just seems obvious that you need a formal data model. But to some in
> the library community it's not, and I worry that some of this audience
> will see criticisms of FRBR, and miss the point that criticisms of FRBR
> or not, a formal data model is VITAL, and the FRBR model is the first
> attempt at this from the library world, and is a huge step forward.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sr. Programmer/Analyst
> The Sheridan Libraries
> Johns Hopkins University
> 410.516.8886
> rochkind (at) jhu.edu
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 12:01:13 EST