Quoting Weinheimer Jim <j.weinhei...@aur.edu>:
"That doesn't make sense, *unless the idea is that we must shoehorn
everything into an FRBR world* where everything has all those extra
records for works, expressions and so on. That is an unwarranted
assumption, I believe. The model was never tested for conformance to
reality, for practical considerations, or for value to our users."
The practical consideration is not FRBR but is linked data, which FRBR
(or something like it) facilitates. And yes, it is being investigated
in a number of instances, some being the XC project, Open Library,
Freebase. It is also the topic of the World Wide Web Consortium's
Incubator Group on Library Linked Data.
http://www.few.vu.nl/~aisaac/lld/draft-charter-lld.html
and see the wiki, which includes a long list of presentations:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Presentations
We gave a pre-conference at ALA on linked data that was sold out. By
the end of the year I will have attended at least 5 conferences on the
topic of library data in linked data format, and missed many, many more.
Also note that RDA and FRBR have both been defined in RDF, the basic
requirement for getting our data into a linked data format.
http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm
Library of Congress is beginning to issue its controlled lists in
linked data format:
http://id.loc.gov/
And RDA itself is being tested (albeit using MARC) by dozens of
libraries in the US.
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/test-partners.html
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/RDAtest/rdatraining.html
This is hardly the "untested" vision that you allege. True, libraries
are not yet cataloging in this environment, but I would be greatly
surprised if we DON'T end up creating linked data in the future. This
is a change that is on the way, that has real practical applications,
and that is a benefit to libraries. The reason for making this change
is NOT about cataloging, but about serving the users; serving the
users where they live and work, on the Web.
Jim, your vision of FRBR as "extra records" is a false impression,
probably based on the diagrams in the FRBR document. FRBR is a
conceptual model, not a data model. In fact, it has nothing to do with
records and linked data doesn't really make use of the concept of
records. Exactly how library data will be structured as we create it
and exchange it is yet to be seen, but I think we can assume that
there will be entities and relationships between those entities. You
can create another model to guide you if FRBR isn't what you need, but
the key thing is that *first* you need a model, *then* you need
cataloging rules. So if you prefer not to use FRBR as the model for
your cataloging rules, you need to substitute another model, and then
make sure that the rules fit the model.
I agree with you that FRBR is probably flawed in many ways. At the
moment I don't think that matters because actual data will bend it or
break it, and we'll figure out what works and what doesn't. (Some of
that figuring out will come out of the W3C Incubator Group, I
believe.) There are aspects of the RDA guidance rules that boggle my
mind, but again, I think in the actual data that we create in the
future we won't be deciding between "p." and "pages" but will be
coding that information for machine use.
It occurs to me that we need a page of links about library linked
data, and the public wiki (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/LLD) would
be a good place to do that. I'll start the page, and it will be linked
from that one.
kc
Obviously, the FRBR/RDA data model was derived from the traditional
library-bibliographic model, with some leaps of the imagination that
turned out to be rather large in some cases, e.g. Do all
information resources have their respective works, expressions,
manifestations and items? I don't know. In the traditional
library-bibliographic model, these things are of no concern in the
majority of cases, and we worry about works and expressions only
when necessary. And what are the consequences if we say that all
information resources do, in fact, have works, expressions, etc.?
It turns out that these consequences are also rather large. Then
are they all worth it for our purposes or for the public's purposes?
So far as I know, no one is asking these extremely practical
questions, and is part of what my podcast was about: is it "change
for change's sake?" Do many people consider RDA to be that kick in
the behind that cataloging and catalogers need?
The traditional catalog was a pragmatic tool and above all, a
practical one, built it had certain specific purposes in mind and
was very much based on trial and error. It was also created before
the Internet and virtual materials became important. Anybody who has
cataloged a single website understands that our traditional
methods, that worked pretty well for centuries, begin to break
down. To take such a tool and expand it into a theoretical data
model encompassing all types of information resources is
unjustified without a great deal of testing.
Again, I am not saying that anyone is at fault. I also thought the
FRBR data model was correct for a long time, but it slowly dawned on
me that this was a problem in my own mind and I had to break away
from it. The problems instituting it are legion, they are too
obvious, and FRBR has yet to show either its theoretical validity or
real value to us or to the public. We can change our traditional
data model--I don't care, but there must be good, solid reasons for
it, and it must be grounded on practical tests, not simply some
theoretical, "It's the wave of the future" statements.
I don't believe it's the wave of the future.
James L. Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
Rome, Italy
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
