Re: services against collections

> These are possible services against collections. They are ways of
> saving the time of the reader. They exemplify growth opportunities
> for libraries. Everybody has access to indexes and content. I can
> carry the totality of the WorldCat index around on my iPod. Providing
> services against content is a growth opportunity for libraries. Yes,
> we have traditionally provided services against content, but we need
> to provide more services against it and figure out ways to provide
> these services in a networked environment.
>

I think there is a lot of growth opportunity, but libraries have to get
the underlying data structures and standards right and then make them
available not only for their own internal purposes but for the larger
public good. I suppose if that were to happen a whole growth industry
could spring up, much like LibraryThing relies on MARC record
information (in addition to Amazon records, or mashups of both sources).
I don't think libraries should do it all-- companies like Syndetics and
Serial Solutions can do things in a more rational way, but I think that
the original mission and purpose of libraries should lead to a set of
standards that can form the basis for both library-centered free
information access and for a "new economy" model of information services
to be used by all of society.

Just to put things in perspective, I always like to go back to the 1997
original FRBR paper (it caused an epiphany in some ways--it made what
was implicitly right and wrong about cataloguing explicit)...

""""At the international level, the model's mapping of individual
attributes and relationships to the specific ways in which bibliographic
data are used could serve as a useful framework for re-assessing data
recording conventions and standards with a view to rationalizing the
level of effort that is expended in "normalizing" bibliographic data. It
could also help to frame investigations into the potential for more
economic means of data capture. ....
The entity-relationship analysis reflected in the model might also serve
as a useful conceptual framework for a re-examination of the structures
used to store, display, and communicate bibliographic data. Further
study could be done on the practical implications of restructuring MARC
record formats to reflect more directly the hierarchical and reciprocal
relationships outlined in the model. An examination of that kind might
offer a new approach to the so-called "multiple versions" issue. The
model could also be expanded in depth to create a fully developed data
model that would serve as the basis for the design of an experimental
database to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of a database
structure patterned on the model.""""
http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf


So have libraries got the underlying structures and standards right?

I think it's very informative to note that RDA (Resource Description and
Access) has replaced the original FRBR term "entity" with "resource"
when discussing user tasks.

A described "resource" is the traditional way of thinking about how to
compartmentalize our bibliographic data-- it matches what fits onto our
catalogue card. This has the effect of collapsing the original FRBR
entities, and it weakens the original intent, which was to have each
entity treated as a separate component.

I've noted that RDA has over time increasingly aligned itself with the
FRBR user tasks mapped against the original FRBR entities. The current
planned chapter structure of RDA is:

Chapter 2 - IDENTIFY - for resource
Chapter 3 - SELECT by using carrier attributes - manifestation alignment
Chapter 4 - SELECT by using content attributes - work/expression
alignment
Chapter 5 - OBTAIN - Acquisition and access information
FIND task - Later chapters
Relationships between FRBR Group 1 entities (work, expression,
manifestation, item).
Relationships between FRBR Group 1 and Group 2 entities (person,
corporate body, family)

The focus in RDA is on descriptive data, as opposed to fixed value data
that can be used to SELECT results with functions such as limits and the
new facet-based interfaces. Information that helps the user to IDENTIFY,
SELECT, and OBTAIN is descriptive textual information, which is fine as
far it goes, but it doesn't seem to be enough to properly provide
overall bibliographic utility for new services in an automated
environment.

The original FRBR paper described the user tasks as happening against
each of the entities, not the resource as a whole. So we should have
systems that help a user IDENTIFY a PERSON or a WORK or a MANIFESTATION
or an ITEM or a CONCEPT or a PLACE. [My earlier posts on IMDb.com and
LibraryThing were intended to show that the original FRBR goals are
feasible and make for great service-focused interfaces].

Sticking to the original FRBR goals to me makes a big difference
especially when drawing up the structures and standards that define
bibliographic containers and components. I've always thought (even back
in 1997) that the future catalogue structure would have to be based on
compartmentalizing each of these FRBR entities, teasing them out of our
MARC records. Only then could the full potential of what libraries are
attempting to do be unleashed with rich new services. We have to get the
underlying structures and standards right.

Thomas Brenndorfer, B.A, M.L.I.S.
Guelph Public Library
100 Norfolk St.
Guelph, ON
N1H 4J6
(519) 824-6220 ext. 276
tbrenndorfer_at_library.guelph.on.ca