1. 1 Mental models and the bibliographic universe Jan Pisanski Maja Žumer LIDA 2007

2. 2 Overview  FRBR – conceptual model of bibliographic universe (What?, Why?, Why not?)  Comparing mental models and conceptual model of bibliographic universe (What? Why? How?)  Proposed research

3. 3 Bibliographic universe  “totality of bibliographic entities and their relationships” (Fattahi, 1997)  Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)  study (IFLA’s Study Group), final report (1998), conceptual (E-R) model  NOT a data model, NOT a standard

4. 4 FRBR Entities  Entities (3 groups), relationships between these entities and their attributes  Group 1 entities Work (a distinct intellectual or artistic creation) Expression (an intellectual or artistic realization of a work) Manifestation (a physical embodiment of an expression) Item (a single exemplar of a manifestation)

5. 5 FRBR (Item and Manifestation) Item (a single exemplar of a manifestation) My copy, my library’s copy… Manifestation (a physical embodiment of an expression) Doubleday, 2003

6. 6 FRBR (Expression and Work ) Expression (an intellectual or artistic realization of a work) Brown’s original English text Work (a distinct intellectual or artistic creation) The Da Vinci code by Dan Brown

7. 7 Importance of a conceptual model of bibliographic universe  Improves cataloguing and catalogs (it was done in order to cut the costs, to better satisfy user needs…)  An example of end-user benefit Present displays too chaotic, relationships not explicit For works with numerous editions In union catalogues, national bibliographies, portals (aggregation)

8. 8 Benefits of FRBR (example)  The European Library (TEL) portal  EDLproject (a Targeted Project funded by the European Commision under the eContentplus programme) (WP2, Task 6)  Explore options of interoperability with other cultural heritage communities  Test the use of FRBR – a small exploratory study of “frbrization” (extracting FRBR structure from existing bibliographic records)

9. 9 But…potential problem of FRBR (+) User-focused but… (-) NO user studies (to save time and money) (-) “FRBR models what we do, not what we should do” (P.LeBoeuf) - current cataloguing practice (+) Based on experience (incl. previous user studies) / world-class experts / long revision process No formal confirmation of validity of FRBR

10. 10 What can be looked at? “Frbrized” OPACs In practice: not using full FRBR structure (result of cataloguing practice -> FRBR does not model what we should do nor what we do?) Our answer: MENTAL MODELS of BIBLIOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE

11. 11 Mental models  Various definitions (sometimes mutually exclusive, e.g. static : change over time), various concepts  Norman : “the models people have of themselves, others, the environment, and the things they interact with”

12. 12 Mental models vs. conceptual models  Usually how mental models match conceptual model, but…  Should conceptual models be questioned?  Carlyle: FRBR not true or false – does it serve its purpose?  But can it be improved?

13. 13 Possible traps  Mental models of bibliographic universe: very abstract  Mental models may be influenced by present catalogue design and cataloguing practice

14. 14 Mental model elicitation  Various methods (observations, interviews, verbal protocols, repertory grid technique,…)  Card sorting

15. 15 Card sorting  Non-verbal  15-30 participants  Generative (good for domain modeling)

16. 16 Card sorting  Set of cards with descriptions (of instances of Group 1 entities),  Non-library terminology, e.g. “Dan Brown’s novel the Da Vinci Code” or “The Da Vinci Code, published by Doubleday in 2003” – limit the effect of current cataloguing practice

17. 17 Card sorting  At least 3 groups  Criterion: concrete/abstract nature of the instance of the example on the card (too complicated?)  Asked to name the groups  Subsequent informal semi-structured interviews  Concept mapping (What-comes-out-of- what?) – Do mental models change?

18. 18 What comes out of what?

19. 19 The parting shot Very abstract concepts Results - valid only for small population: More FRBR user studies are needed (including studies of prototypes)!!!!  THANK YOU!  ANY QUESTIONS?  E-mail: jan.pisanski@nuk.uni-lj.si