FRBR: Challenges for Implementation in AACR2, With Some Attention to Nonbook Materials Allyson Carlyle Information School University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA IFLA FRBR Review Group Conference on: FRBR in 21 st Century Catalogs: An Invitational Workshop ©2005 Allyson Carlyle

Overview o Introduction o Challenges to implementing FRBR: o Work challenges o Expression challenges o Manifestation challenges o Conclusion

Challenges, Summarized o Fully incorporating the work entity into the rules – at last! o Accommodating a relatively new entity, expression, into the rules. o Addressing weaknesses in the existing rules, particularly those in Chapter 21.

Work Challenges o FRBR defines work as a distinct intellectual or artistic creation, but AACR2 still lacks a definition for it, although the rules make use of the term. o Need to incorporate a definition of work into the rules. o Need to explicitly link the selection of main entry citation (work citation?) to the identification of a work for users.

Boundaries o One of the challenges in implementing FRBR is to decide when you have a new (related) work and when you have an expression of an existing work. o Do we want to re-examine the current boundaries as implemented in current cataloging practice and in AACR2?

Related Work or Expression? o Pride and Prejudice, an exercise for beginning cataloging – do the movie and the book represent the same work? o In presentations and articles about FRBR, a frequent example Ive seen for an expression of a work is a movie version. o If FRBR were interpreted according to existing rules, these versions would not be treated as expressions.

Rule Revision Challenges o As Martha M. Yee noted in her 1982 article Integration of Nonbook Materials in AACR2, there is no general rule for entry for works of mixed responsibility in AACR2. o With the incorporation of FRBR into the rules, we have an excellent opportunity to write such a rule. o This rule would establish general work boundaries for works of mixed responsibility.

Serials o Examples: o Cleveland Plain Dealer o Serials Librarian o A challenge still exists to incorporate serials into FRBRs document model comfortably.

Whole/part Challenges o How are Serials Librarian and Cleveland Plain Dealer works? Viewing from the whole/part perspective may help. o Beethovens 9 th, another exercise for beginning cataloging – is the Ode to Joy a work or is it an expression of a work? o Cataloging, especially cataloging nonbook items, is frequently engaged in describing wholes with parts and parts of wholes.

Easy Wholes? o Often, a whole is what we think of as what is conjured up by the FRBR definition of work – a distinct intellectual or artistic creation. o In current practice, when we catalog a part of such a whole, we sometimes catalog it as an expression of a work, and sometimes as a separate work.

Collections o Collections of previously existing works do not, perhaps, fit the FRBR work definition as distinct creation quite so well.

Back to serials o What type of work are serial works and collections such as anthologies? o Ed Jones noted that the FRBR definition of work as a distinct creation is difficult to apply to serials – or, at least, it is difficult for some serials librarians to accept.

Response – Consider adopting two definitions of work? o Patrick Le Bœuf, referring to musical works, proposes that we consider works to be of two types: o bona fide (those that fit the distinct creation definition) or o fiat (those that we declare to be works: e.g., collections and parts published separately). o If we accepted this proposal, part of Eds challenge to FRBR would be met.

Advantages o Advantages to explicitly identifying and defining two types of works include: o answering the objections of serials catalogers to the FRBR model (?); o giving us the opportunity to explore different types of rules for each type of work; o providing a clearer rationale for existing rules (e.g., rule 21.2, Changes in Titles Proper) o making teaching Chapter 21 easier.

Expression Challenges o Incorporating the expression entity into cataloging rules and practice may be the most difficult part of implementing FRBR because: o Expressions have been incorporated into cataloging practice inconsistently before now; o New cataloging data will have to be recorded to identify them; o The expression entity is difficult to understand, making implementation potentially difficult and actual cataloging practice inconsistent.

Boundaries, again o How will we determine when we have an expression vs. when we will have a new work?

A Serials Example o Currently, we create a new serial record with a new main entry citation (and thus, essentially, declare a new serial work) when we add Mid-Atlantic ed. as qualifier to a serial title. o Will we make some of these differences into expression level differences, instead of work differences? o If we do, how will it be done?

Identification of Expressions o AACR2 is divided into two parts, description and access. o Required cataloging data identifying expressions appears in both parts of AACR2.

Expression Identifiers in Part I o In AACR2 descriptive chapters, information about expressions is included in these places (among others): o area 3 details such as scale for cartographic materials; o much of what is in the second element of the physical description area, for example, illustrated for books, or black and white for moving image and graphic materials.

Expression Identifiers in Part II o In Part II, some uniform title additions identify expressions, for example: o version information for music and other types of materials; o language.

Other Inconsistencies o Sometimes information that is in the same rule in AACR2 identifies different FRBR entities, for example, Other physical details in Area 5. o Sometimes this element identifies expression information (e.g., black and white for a moving image); o but sometimes it identifies manifestation information, e.g., double-sided to describe a flip chart.

Lack of Expression Cataloging Data o Some information necessary for identifying expressions simply isnt required in AACR2, for example: o translator names o illustrator names

Transcription and Identification o The multiple functions (access and selection) of transcribed information, some of which identifies expression information, should be recognized. o The clearest way to differentiate between these functions is to create separate fields for the same information (e.g., 4XX & 8XX fields). o But, this kind of duplication in a record is problematic.

Manifestation Challenge - Boundaries o Some features that now clearly indicate editions of the same work may identify either manifestations or expressions – how will we decide? A rule for every case? o For example, Braille – new expression or new manifestation?

Taste & Judgment o Need to balance flexible, condition-based rules that rely ultimately on taste & judgment, with cataloger desires to have things spelled out. o Need to indicate specific reasons for specific rules clearly as well as the principles behind them.

The Ultimate FRBR Challenge for AACR2: How Much Change Can We Handle? o If we, in FRBRizing AACR2, address even some of the issues Ive raised (and Im sure there are many others), it is possible that we are looking at significant changes, both to AACR2 and possibly to MARC. o Are we ready?

Finally, the User Challenge o Need for user research to: o confirm the need for changes; o indicate if differences in perception exist from the document model described by FRBR; o guide the construction of displays that facilitate the objectives of the catalog.