FRSAD: Challenges of Modelling the Aboutness

1. FRSAD: Challenges of Modelling the Aboutness Maja Žumer University of Ljubljana Slovenia (based on the work of the FRSAD WG)

2. 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 Cologne, July 20. 2010

3. FRSAD WG established in 2005 • Marcia Lei Zeng, USA, Chair • Maja Žumer, Slovenia, Co-Chair • Athena Salaba, USA, Co-Chair, secretary • Leda Bultrini, Italy • Lois Mai Chan, USA • Gerhard Riesthuis, The Netherlands • Diane Vizine-Goetz, USA • Ekaterina Zaytseva, Russia • Jonathan Furner, USA • Edward O’Neill, USA Cologne, July 20. 2010

4. Terms of Reference • to build a conceptual model of Group 3 entities within the FRBR framework as they relate to the aboutness of works, • to provide a clearly defined, structured frame of reference for relating the data that are recorded in subject authority records to the needs of the users of those records, and • to assist in an assessment of the potential for international sharing and use of subject authority data both within the library sector and beyond. Cologne, July 20. 2010

5. Challenges of subject access • Is it possible to objectively determine the topic(s) of each work? • In what context will the users need a particular work in the future? • Granularity of topics • Specificity of topics • How to represent the subject of a work? • How will the user formulate the query? • Different knowledge organisation systems • Subject searching is difficult for users Cologne, July 20. 2010

6. User tasks • FRBR : • Find • Identify • Select • Obtain • FRAD: • Find • Identify • Contextualize • Justify FRSAD: Find Identify Select Explore

7. Extension of FRBR Figure 3.3 "Group 3 entities and 'subject' relationships" Family added by FRAD .

8. FRBR Group 3 entities…. This part of the model has been criticized, because it does not include time and does not cover well activities and processes (e.g., Heaney, 1997; Delsey, T. 2005) Cologne, July 20. 2010

9. Study and Discussions Different scenarios discussed: • Keep FRBR Group 3 entities and only analyse attributes and relationships. • Add time to the FRBR list. • Take Ranganathan’s facets as the basis. • Take <indecs> as the basis. • Make a pragmatic list of entities. One example is the one by Buizza and Guerrini • Propose something new Cologne, July 20. 2010

10. Two small tests: Four students and faculty members at Kent State Library school classified existing subject terms used by the NSDL (National Science Digital Library) contributors. These include 3 thousand terms assigned based on a variety of subject vocabularies and free keywords. Professor Lois Chan classified the subject headings from LCSH she included in her books. They classified terms into six categories: ‘concrete stuff’, ‘abstract stuff’, ‘event’, ‘time’, ‘place’, and ‘other’ Cologne, July 20. 2010

11. Test Results • Blurred distinction between concrete and abstract • Confusion about proper names • Terms are put into ‘other’ category • This categorisation is not generally applicable or useful • There is no generally applicable categorisation Cologne, July 20. 2010

12. Kent & Dublin meetings, 2006-12

13. Thema is all the things that could be “subject of” work, including Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 (=Other) Group1 Other Group 2

14. FRSAD– generalisation of FRBR Cologne, July 20. 2010

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 Cologne, July 20. 2010

16. Nomens 1-8 Nomen 9 Cologne, July 20. 2010

17. Types of thema Depending on the implementation (domain and/or KOS), themais categorised • FRBR: object, concept, event, place, +… • Class and instance • Medicine: medical condition, symptom, treatment, substance… • … Cologne, July 20. 2010

18. Nomen attributes (include but not limited to) Type of nomen (identifier, controlled name, …)* Scheme (LCSH, DDC, UDC, ULAN, ISO 8601…) Reference Source of nomen (Encyclopedia Britannica…) Representation of nomen (alphanumeric, sound, visual,...) Language of nomen (English, Japanese, Slovenian,…) Script of nomen (Cyrillic, Thai, Chinese-simplified,…) Script conversion (Pinyin, ISO 3601, Romanisation of Japanese…) Form of nomen (full name, abbreviation, formula…) Time of validity of nomen (until xxxx, after xxxx, from… to …) Audience (English-speaking users, scientists, children …) Status of nomen (provisional, accepted, official,...) *note: examples of attribute values in parenthesis Cologne, July 20. 2010

19. Types of nomen • Identifier (persistent and unique within a domain) • Controlled name (constructed in authority control/vocabulary maintenance process, which usually serves as access point) (note: called Controlled access point in FRAD) • Implementation-specific types, e.g.: • Defined by originating system • Defined by language • …. Cologne, July 20. 2010

20. Thema relationshipsGeneral relationships between themas (applicable to all types) • Hierarchical • Partitive • Generic • Instance • Polyhierarchical • Associative (=other) Other thema-to-thema relationships are implementation-dependent Cologne, July 20. 2010

21. Nomen relationships • Partitive • Equivalence Equivalence can be specified further, e.g.: • Replaces/is replaced by • Has variant form/is variant form • Has derivation/is derived from • Has acronym/is acronym • Has abbreviation/is abbreviation • Has transliterated form/is transliteration Cologne, July 20. 2010

22. place as thema nomens nomen –nomen relations thema –thema relations thema types (place-specific)

23. The importance of the THEMA-NOMEN model Separating what are usually called concepts (or topics, subjects, classes [of concepts]) from what they are known by, referred to, or addressed as A general abstract model, not limited to any particular domain or implementation Potential for interoperability within the library field and beyond Cologne, July 20. 2010

24. Issues identified in the review • Terminology • Too abstract – difficult • Is not taylored specifically to the library community (LSCH?) • Complexity Cologne, July 20. 2010

25. Issue 1: Choice of terms “Latin is oldfashioned/confusing/pretentious” • Different and overlapping meaning of ‘subject’, ‘topic’, ‘concept’ • Different views on granularity • ‘Name’ was understood as ‘proper name’ Therefore: • Terms from Latin that do not have to be translated and are not loaded with other meanings Cologne, July 20. 2010

26. Issue 2: Too abstract “FRSAD is too general and abstract” • Traditionally no explicit conceptual models • Modelling is difficult • Detailed rules vs. an abstract model Cologne, July 20. 2010

27. Issue 3: Not specific to libraries “No direct relationship with the current cataloguing practice” • Original FRBR entities (+time?) • LCSH • Interoperability beyond the library domain • Application profiles should be developed Cologne, July 20. 2010

28. Issue 4: Complexity is not modelled “The model should be developed to explicitly cover simple and complex themas” • What does ‘complexity’ refer to? • Usually nomen • There is no general ‘atomic level’ thema • Complexity, rules (e.g. precoordination) depending on the KOS or language Cologne, July 20. 2010

29. Current status • Document submitted • Available on IFLANET (http://www.ifla.org/en/node/1297) • Accepted for publication a few days ago Next step: • Harmonisation Cologne, July 20. 2010