‘Convergence is the Goal’: Activity Report of the IFLA FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonization Group

1. ‘Convergence is the Goal’:Activity Reportof the IFLA FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonization Group Patrick Le Bœuf FRBR in 21st century catalogues: an invitational workshop Dublin, Ohio, May 2-4, 2005

2. FRBR/CRM Harmonization Group • formed 2003 • gathers representatives for & corresponding members of: • the IFLA FRBR Review Group • the CRM Special Interest Group (CRM-SIG) • chaired by Martin Doerr, Institute of Computer Science of the FOundation for Research & Technology Hellas – ICS-FORTH (assisted by Patrick Le Bœuf)

3. For the FRBR “community”: Trond Aalberg Ketil Albertsen Allyson Carlyle Beth Dulabahn Tom Delsey Stefan Gradmann Mauro Guerrini Patrick Le Bœuf Dan Matei Glenn Patton Gerhard Riesthuis Richard Smiraglia Barbara Tillett Maja Žumer For the CRM “community”: Gerhard Budin Nicholas Crofts Martin Doerr (chair) Tony Gill Dolores Iorizzo Stephen Stead Matthew Stiff Manfred Thaller Günter Waibel Persons involved:

4. Why harmonize FRBR & CRM? • They represent similar efforts in close fields (cultural heritage) • It is in line with the mainstream of “ALM convergence” • It will facilitate mediation systems between library catalogs & museum inventories • It will facilitate reuse of tools designed for CRM (e.g., RDF Schema expression of CRM) • It will facilitate cross-domain projects (e.g., the SCULPTEUR/PICTEUR Project)

5. FRBR E-R focuses on “multiple” objects (ideally “identical” copies of publications) scalable and incomplete: FRBR for descriptive aspects, FRAR for authorities,… “static”, “non-event-aware” model few entities, many attributes CRM OO focuses on “unique” objects (that can be grouped by “type”, e.g. specimen/species) integrated: seamless coverage of descriptive aspects & authorities “dynamic”, “event-aware” model no “attribute” as such, only relationships ( many classes) Comparative chart

6. What is CIDOC CRM? • Developed from 1996 on by ICOM CIDOC (International Council of Museums – International Committee for Documentation) • Maintained by CRM-SIG • About to be validated as ISO 21127 • Builds upon the CIDOC Information Categories • Covers fine arts, archaeology, natural history…

7. Role of CRM: Dig Meaning Out of “Flat” Statements Author has an INV4884 Artist: Théodore Géricault Date: 1818-1819 Something and a Date actually means:

8. ActorAppellation known as “Théodore Géricault” was carried out by Actor was produced by ProductionEvent Something lasted for a given Time-Span known as can be approximated with reference to Time Primitive(date range) ObjectIdentifier 1818-1819 “INV4884”

9. Of what ? Type Event-Centered Structure of CRM Involving whom? Involving what? ActorAppellation Appellation Actor PhysicalStuff What happened? ConceptualObject Event Time-Span Place TimePrimitive PlaceAppellation When? Where?

10. Methodology (1) • 3 meetings so far: • Meeting #1: 2003, Nov. 12-14 • Getting to know each other: talks and debates: • Collection vs. Sets vs. Multipart Objects • Richard Smiraglia on Work notion • Allyson Carlyle on Expression notion • Manfred Thaller on Manuscripts • Tom Delsey on Subjects • … • Meeting #2: 2004, March 22-25 • Work & Expression Attributes • Meeting #3: 2005, Feb. 14-16 • Manifestation & Item Attributes • Detailed reports have not been made publicly available

11. Methodology (2) • Examine each Attribute: • What does it mean? • Is there any implicit assumption about its meaning? • How do non-librarians understand its definition? • How to express the same meaning in a CRM-like structure? • What’s on a librarian’s mind? • Cataloging processes sometimes important to model too

12. Methodology (3) • Too many Attributes?  Split the entity! • A given Attribute actually refers to an Event?  Make the Event explicit! • How do catalogers acquire knowledge about merely “abstract” entities?  Through concrete entities that are deemed to be representative for abstract entities

13. Some Principles • The “idea” of “the” Work is only known through a representative Expression • i.e., my idea of Hamlet = it is an English text; a Japanese version = an Expression too, but not “representative” of what the Work is • An Expression is only grasped through a representative Manifestation • i.e., an edition of Hamlet titled “Something rotten in Denmark” but otherwise with correct text = a Manifestation, but not deemed “representative” as to its title • It is the Bibliographic Agency (= the cataloger) who determines what is “representative” and what is not

14. assigned to assigned The old debate again!“New Work, or just another Expression?” has constraining super-type • A cataloger says: “I think of Hamlet as a Work that is best represented by an Expression of ‘Text’ type” • If something called Hamlet is of another type than that constraining super-type (e.g., a movie), then it is another Work has representativeexpression Work Expression has type Type BibliographicAgency performed RepresentativeAssignment

15. Other Constraining Super-Type Same Constraining Super-Type

16. Three basic distinctions that were absent from E-R FRBR Work is a is a = has distinct “parts”, either in its conception (e.g., a trilogy), or over time (revisions, translations…) Self-ContainedExpression ComplexWork is expressed in is a SerialWork

17. Expression is fragment of is a is part of is a Self-ContainedExpression FragmentExpression shows something conceived as a whole by its creator not intended as a whole by its creator

18. Type InformationCarrier = 2 classes from CRM is a is a is a ManifestationProduct Type ManifestationSingleton Items e.g., a publication(abstract notion) e.g., a manuscript (physical object)

19. The nature of… a title-page ManifestationProduct Type Expression comprises carriers of • The info found on title-pages does not belong to the embodied Expression • It is a peculiar kind of Expression – created by the publisher; we called it: “Publication Expression” has publisher content (instance: author’s text) PublicationExpression is composed of Title (instance: title-page+TOC+ publisher’s logo…) (proper)

20. What next? • Group 2, Group 3, FRAR attributes • FRBR & FRAR relationships • Polish the overall picture (some attributes were postponed, some new concepts need clarification) • Check the robustness • Draft deliverables: scope notes and examples for each class & property, tutorials, explanatory documents… • = 2 years of work??

21. Pros: Goal = only 1 conceptual model for museums & libraries unified field OO formalism more appropriate for Semantic Web activities Opens ways to revolutionary OPACs Cons: Sounds too complicated for catalogers? Appeals more to information & computer scientists than to librarians? Do we need a “unified field” at all? Pros & Cons

22. By way of conclusion • 2007 = “Annus Mirabilis”: • International Cataloguing Principles • AACR3 • and hopefully OO-FRBR??

23. Thanks for your patience! Special thanks to Martin Doerr and Anila Angjeli for re-reading this presentation and help me correct it