1 / 53

Do we need to change? Do we want to change? The future of bibliographic information systems

Do we need to change? Do we want to change? The future of bibliographic information systems. Maja Žumer University of Ljubljana Slovenia. What is different?. Libraries are facing competition for the first time

brian
Download Presentation

Do we need to change? Do we want to change? The future of bibliographic information systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 2011

  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 2011

  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 2011

  5. CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  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 CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  7. 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 CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  8. Group 1 Work Conceptual/content is realized through Expression is embodied in Manifestation Physical/recording is exemplified by Item CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  9. CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  10. CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  11. CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  12. FRAD • Family added in Group 2 • Name as a separate entity • Justify and Contextualise added CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  13. FRAD CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  14. FRSAD– generalisation of FRBR CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  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 2011

  16. User tasks • FRBR : • Find • Identify • Select • Obtain • FRAD: • Find • Identify • Contextualize • Justify FRSAD: Find Identify Select Explore CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  17. Why FRBR? • Not a replica of a card catalogue • Bibliographic universe presented as a network - relationships • Supports exploration • Is intuitive CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  18. FRBR: intuitive? • Declaratively user-oriented • No user studies • No completely FRBR-based implementation • One way to find out: mental model elicitation CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  19. Study • Do mental models resemble the conceptual model? • 30 participants • Ljubljana / vicinity • July 2007 – February 2008 • We only looked at Group 1 entities CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  20. 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 CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  21. 2. Concept mapping • “What comes out of what?” CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  22. CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  23. FRBR Concept maps CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  24. Task 2: Results • Most common connections were FRBR-like • Core group of mental models close to FRBR CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  25. 3. Comparison task • 1. Interviews • 2. Rankings • 11 pairs of similar objects (mostly books) CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  26. CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  27. 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 CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  28. I M E W CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  29. 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) CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  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 2011

  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 2011

  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 2011

  33. Development of the model • Thetextof FRBR is occasionallyvague, open to interpretation • Expression • Aggregates • Analysisofattributesandrelationships CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  34. Harmonisation • Different modelling approaches • User tasks • Differences • FRBR and FRSAD • FRBR and FRAD • FRAD and FRSAD CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  35. Frbrisation • Extraction of FRBR concepts from existing bibliographic data • Usually by automatic means CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  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 2011

  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 2011

  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 2011

  39. Presentation of search results Currently • Listsofmanifestations • Relationshipsmissing or not evident • Exploration not supported Visualisation as a possiblescenario CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  40. M M M M W W W W W W M M M E E E E E E E E M M CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  41. W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W imitated as W part of series adapted as novel motionpicture musical picturebook play W W W W W W issued with subject of E E E E E E E E W W W W W W W W W W W novel literarycriticism TV documentary M M M W M M M M M M illustrations literarycriticism novel CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  42. CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  43. CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  44. CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  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 2011

  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 2011

  47. An illustration… CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  48. We should not wait for the perfect solution • VIAF • Cooperation of all stakeholders (publishers, rights management…) CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  49. Research • Basic • Vision • Understanding information behaviour • Applied • Technical solutions • Pilot systems • All verified with users CASLIN, 13 June 2011

  50. Do we want to change? Probably not… But resisting the change will result in the loss of users CASLIN, 13 June 2011

More Related