Convergence is the Goal: Activity Report of the IFLA FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonization Group Patrick Le Bœuf FRBR in 21st century catalogues: an invitational workshop Dublin, Ohio, May 2-4, 2005

2 FRBR/CRM Harmonization Group formed 2003 gathers representatives for & corresponding members of: the IFLA FRBR Review Group the CRM Special Interest Group (CRM-SIG) chaired by Martin Doerr, Institute of Computer Science of the FOundation for Research & Technology Hellas – ICS-FORTH (assisted by Patrick Le Bœuf)

3 Persons involved: For the FRBR community: Trond Aalberg Ketil Albertsen Allyson Carlyle Beth Dulabahn Tom Delsey Stefan Gradmann Mauro Guerrini Patrick Le Bœuf Dan Matei Glenn Patton Gerhard Riesthuis Richard Smiraglia Barbara Tillett Maja Žumer For the CRM community: Gerhard Budin Nicholas Crofts Martin Doerr (chair) Tony Gill Dolores Iorizzo Stephen Stead Matthew Stiff Manfred Thaller Günter Waibel

4 Why harmonize FRBR & CRM? They represent similar efforts in close fields (cultural heritage) It is in line with the mainstream of ALM convergence It will facilitate mediation systems between library catalogs & museum inventories It will facilitate reuse of tools designed for CRM (e.g., RDF Schema expression of CRM) It will facilitate cross-domain projects (e.g., the SCULPTEUR/PICTEUR Project)

5 Comparative chart FRBR E-R focuses on multiple objects (ideally identical copies of publications) scalable and incomplete: FRBR for descriptive aspects, FRAR for authorities,… static, non-event-aware model few entities, many attributes CRM OO focuses on unique objects (that can be grouped by type, e.g. specimen/species) integrated: seamless coverage of descriptive aspects & authorities dynamic, event-aware model no attribute as such, only relationships ( many classes)

6 What is CIDOC CRM? Developed from 1996 on by ICOM CIDOC (International Council of Museums – International Committee for Documentation) Maintained by CRM-SIG About to be validated as ISO Builds upon the CIDOC Information Categories Covers fine arts, archaeology, natural history…

7 Role of CRM: Dig Meaning Out of Flat Statements INV4884 Artist: Théodore Géricault Date: Something Author Date has an and a

8 Something Object Identifier Production Event Actor Actor Appellation Time-Span Time Primitive (date range) INV4884 Théodore Géricault known as was carried out by known as lasted for a given can be approximated with reference to was produced by

9 Event-Centered Structure of CRM Event What happened? Involving whom? Involving what? When?Where? Actor Actor Appellation Physical Stuff Appellation Time-Span Time Primitive Place Place Appellation Conceptual Object Of what ? Type

10 Methodology (1) 3 meetings so far: Meeting #1: 2003, Nov Getting to know each other: talks and debates: Collection vs. Sets vs. Multipart Objects Richard Smiraglia on Work notion Allyson Carlyle on Expression notion Manfred Thaller on Manuscripts Tom Delsey on Subjects … Meeting #2: 2004, March Work & Expression Attributes Meeting #3: 2005, Feb Manifestation & Item Attributes Detailed reports have not been made publicly available

11 Methodology (2) Examine each Attribute: What does it mean? Is there any implicit assumption about its meaning? How do non-librarians understand its definition? How to express the same meaning in a CRM-like structure? Whats on a librarians mind? Cataloging processes sometimes important to model too

12 Methodology (3) Too many Attributes? Split the entity! A given Attribute actually refers to an Event? Make the Event explicit! How do catalogers acquire knowledge about merely abstract entities? Through concrete entities that are deemed to be representative for abstract entities

13 Some Principles The idea of the Work is only known through a representative Expression –i.e., my idea of Hamlet = it is an English text; a Japanese version = an Expression too, but not representative of what the Work is An Expression is only grasped through a representative Manifestation –i.e., an edition of Hamlet titled Something rotten in Denmark but otherwise with correct text = a Manifestation, but not deemed representative as to its title It is the Bibliographic Agency (= the cataloger) who determines what is representative and what is not

14 The old debate again! New Work, or just another Expression? A cataloger says: I think of Hamlet as a Work that is best represented by an Expression of Text type If something called Hamlet is of another type than that constraining super-type (e.g., a movie), then it is another Work Bibliographic Agency Representative Assignment WorkExpression Type performed has representative expression assigned assigned to has type has constraining super-type

15 Same Constraining Super-Type Other Constraining Super-Type

16 Three basic distinctions that were absent from E-R FRBR Work is a Complex Work Serial Work Self-Contained Expression is a is expressed in = has distinct parts, either in its conception (e.g., a trilogy), or over time (revisions, translations…)

17 Expression is a Fragment Expression Self-Contained Expression is a shows something conceived as a whole by its creator not intended as a whole by its creator is fragment of is part of

18 Information Carrier is a Manifestation Singleton Manifestation Product Type is a e.g., a publication (abstract notion) e.g., a manuscript (physical object) Type = 2 classes from CRM is a Items

19 The nature of… a title-page The info found on title-pages does not belong to the embodied Expression It is a peculiar kind of Expression – created by the publisher; we called it: Publication Expression Expression (instance: authors text) Publication Expression Manifestation Product Type comprises carriers of (proper) Title has publisher content (instance: title-page+TOC+ publishers logo…) is composed of

20 What next? Group 2, Group 3, FRAR attributes FRBR & FRAR relationships Polish 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… = 2 years of work??

21 Pros & Cons Pros: Goal = only 1 conceptual model for museums & libraries unified field OO formalism more appropriate for Semantic Web activities Opens ways to revolutionary OPACs Cons: Sounds too complicated for catalogers? Appeals more to information & computer scientists than to librarians? Do we need a unified field at all?

22 By way of conclusion 2007 = Annus Mirabilis: International Cataloguing Principles AACR3 and hopefully OO-FRBR??

23 Thanks for your patience! Special thanks to Martin Doerr and Anila Angjeli for re-reading this presentation and help me correct it