1. Do we need to change? Do we want to change? The future of bibliographic information systems Maja Žumer University of Ljubljana Slovenia

2. What is different? Libraries are facing competition for the first time Library catalogues are not perceived as intuitive – compared to other tools and services Users actively avoid using the catalogue even when they want to borrow a book „Everything is on the Web“ Users expect simple tools which do not require specific training CASLIN, 13 June 20112

3. Are libraries aware of the changes? Not completely –Libraries are not questioning (enough) their tools –They are relying on tradition But there are discussions and developments: –New models –Awareness of new tools and services (e.g. Semantic Web) –Assuming new roles or performing them in a new way (e-learning) CASLIN, 13 June 20113

4. The FRBR family FRBR: conceptual model of the biblographic universe –Focus on Group 1(products of intellectual endeavour) FRAD: extension of FRBR –Focus on authority data (Group 2 and works) FRSAD: extension of FRBR –Focus on the subject relationship CASLIN, 13 June 20114

5. 5

6. 6 User functions using the data to FIND materials that correspond to the user's stated search criteria using the data retrieved to IDENTIFY an entity (e.g., to confirm that the document described corresponds to the document sought by the user, or to distinguish between two similar documents) using the data to SELECT an entity that is appropriate to the user's needs (e.g., to select a text in a language the user understands, or to choose a version of a computer program that is compatible with the hardware and operating system available to the user) using the data in order to acquire or OBTAIN access to the entity described

7. CASLIN, 13 June 20117 Entities Group 1 (products of intellectual and artistic endeavor) Work Expression Manifestation Item Group 2 (actors related to Group1 entities) Person Corporate Body Group 3 (subjects of works) Concept Object Event Place

8. CASLIN, 13 June 20118 Work Expression Manifestation Item is realized through is embodied in is exemplified by Group 1 Conceptual/content Physical/recording

9. CASLIN, 13 June 20119

10. 10

11. CASLIN, 13 June 201111

12. CASLIN, 13 June 201112 FRAD Family added in Group 2 Name as a separate entity Justify and Contextualise added

13. CASLIN, 13 June 201113 FRAD

14. FRSAD – generalisation of FRBR CASLIN, 13 June 201114

15. FRSAD Nomen: any alpha numeric, sound, visual etc. symbol or combination of symbols by which a thema is known, referred to or addressed as Thema: anything that can be subject of a work CASLIN, 13 June 201115

16. User tasks FRSAD: Find Identify Select Explore FRBR : Find Identify Select Obtain FRAD: Find Identify Contextualize Justify CASLIN, 13 June 201116

17. Why FRBR? Not a replica of a card catalogue Bibliographic universe presented as a network - relationships Supports exploration Is intuitive CASLIN, 13 June 201117

18. CASLIN, 13 June 201118 FRBR: intuitive? Declaratively user-oriented No user studies No completely FRBR-based implementation One way to find out: mental model elicitation

19. CASLIN, 13 June 201119 Study Do mental models resemble the conceptual model? 30 participants Ljubljana / vicinity July 2007 – February 2008 We only looked at Group 1 entities

20. CASLIN, 13 June 201120 1. Card sorting Abstract/concrete nature of the things described Cards: plain descriptions of instances of FRBR entitites No expression/manifestation groupings (Work – Editions – Copies) original expressions with works, other expressions with manifestations

21. CASLIN, 13 June 201121 2. Concept mapping “What comes out of what?”

22. CASLIN, 13 June 201122

23. CASLIN, 13 June 201123

24. CASLIN, 13 June 201124 Task 2: Results Most common connections were FRBR-like Core group of mental models close to FRBR

25. CASLIN, 13 June 201125 3. Comparison task 1. Interviews 2. Rankings 11 pairs of similar objects (mostly books)

26. CASLIN, 13 June 201126

27. CASLIN, 13 June 201127 Rankings Ranking pairs according to their perceived substitutability from the most substitutable to the least substitutable Pairs could be on the same level of substitutability

28. CASLIN, 13 June 201128 PairAverage Rank Parma2 Koča2 Kačič3.8 Bulgakov3.9 Mystery4.8 Kam7.2 Skrivnost7.4 Economics7.7 Africa7.8 Poirot9.6 Room9.7

29. CASLIN, 13 June 201129 Conclusions of the study There is no single mental model The more people think about bibliographic universe and the more they interact with it, the more FRBR-like their mental models are Results of user study indicate that FRBR can be used as conceptual basis for catalogs Positioning of the original expression in the model (often seen as surrogate of work)

30. Continuation Based on Task 2 List of descriptions+six graphs (including FRBR graph) 6 groups of 10 students – two examples „Which graph is the best representation of the relationships between entities listed?“ CASLIN, 13 June 201130

31. Preliminary results FRBR by far the most frequent choice Some correlation with the domain of study The comments are still being analysed CASLIN, 13 June 201131

32. If FRBR is the model, why not implement it immediately? Development of the model Harmonisation of the FRBR family Frbrisation Presentation of search results Semantic web CASLIN, 13 June 201132

33. Development of the model The text of FRBR is occasionally vague, open to interpretation –Expression –Aggregates Analysis of attributes and relationships CASLIN, 13 June 201133

34. Harmonisation Different modelling approaches User tasks Differences –FRBR and FRSAD –FRBR and FRAD –FRAD and FRSAD CASLIN, 13 June 201134

35. Frbrisation Extraction of FRBR concepts from existing bibliographic data Usually by automatic means CASLIN, 13 June 201135

36. Why? To show benefits of FRBR in the absence of “born FRBR” data Frbrisation + “Born FRBR” = compatible Essential for the transition CASLIN, 13 June 201136

37. Challenges Some entities are difficult to identify Quality depends on the quality of legacy data (completeness, consistency, errors) MARC is not designed for such processing –Relationships –Important information as text (notes) –Missing entities CASLIN, 13 June 201137

38. Some good results Relatively good extraction of entities and relationships for complete records (e.g. national bibliographies) For optimal results algorithms adapted to each (part of) database Matching algorithms Many projects CASLIN, 13 June 201138

39. Presentation of search results Currently Lists of manifestations Relationships missing or not evident Exploration not supported Visualisation as a possible scenario CASLIN, 13 June 201139

40. M M M M M M M M M EEEEEEEE WWWWWW CASLIN, 13 June 201140

41. W EEEEEEEE WWWWWW M MMM M M M MM adapted as imitated as issued with part of series subject of W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W novel motion picture musical picture book play illustrations literary criticism novel literary criticism TV documentary CASLIN, 13 June 201141

42. CASLIN, 13 June 201142

43. CASLIN, 13 June 201143

44. CASLIN, 13 June 201144

45. FRBR and Semantic Web Many projects –Controlled vocabularies in SKOS –Linked Data –RDF IFLA Namespaces project –Open Metadata Registry –Each of three models separately –Finished after the harmonisation –Investigation of other formats –Identification CASLIN, 13 June 201145

46. Identifiers Essential for export and reuse No consensus on identifiers of FRBR entities Not used enough (ISBN – 30%) Not used consistently CASLIN, 13 June 201146

47. An illustration… VITIELLO (2004) GATENBY (2008) LEBOEUF (2005) HAKALA (2006) ISBNMMMM ISSNMMMM ISRCEME ISANW, EWW ISWCWWW, E ISTC WEW, E ISMNMMM V-ISAN ME CASLIN, 13 June 201147

48. We should not wait for the perfect solution VIAF Cooperation of all stakeholders (publishers, rights management…) CASLIN, 13 June 201148

49. Research Basic –Vision –Understanding information behaviour Applied –Technical solutions –Pilot systems All verified with users CASLIN, 13 June 201149

50. Do we want to change? Probably not… But resisting the change will result in the loss of users CASLIN, 13 June 201150

51. Do we have to change? YES The future of libraries is change and competition with other information providers and their tools CASLIN, 13 June 201151

52. I hope this is the future… CASLIN, 13 June 201152

53. Thank you maja.zumer@ff.uni-lj.si CASLIN, 13 June 201153