In modeling terms what Rob is proposing is both simpler and more complex
than described. Ray's Godfather description is all within a "bibliographic
plane" - the various objects (real and abstract) are all related to each
other within that plane. The cataloguing record (a surrogate) is orthogonal
to that plane. So in Rob's original example the first two objects are within
the plane (the work and the instance), but the cataloguing record is outside
the plane. There are, however, two howevers.

First there can be a MARC record created about any of the objects in the
bibliographic plane (a record for the hard back Godfather and the DVD
Godfather have obvious differences, the record for the work Godfather is
essentially the basic story and not much else) So we can (don't have to, but
can) generate 11 MARC records for the various Godfathers (including the tv
program which just has "derived from" or "includes bits of" links back to
the two other bibliographic objects that were incorporated into it).

Then, as Matthew points out, each of the MARC record is itself a
bibliographic object and can be subject to FRBR-isation (specially at the
instance level).

Thus we could end up with 22 objects in 2 planes for all of this. Of course
the real world 'bibliographic plane' objects don't exist in the computer
systems (leaving aside eBooks etc.) so we are concerned with only the MARC
surrogates (back to 11). And, in fact, the MARC records hold both the
bibliographic plane information and the metadata plane information within
themselves. It's just that most ILSs don't create an index on the name of
the cataloguer or the MARC record's date of creation. They could but they
don't as not many people are interested in that information. Unlike artists,
catalogers get little (no) recognition for the catalog records they create.

So we end up with a situation where we may be creating an extension which
nobody wants to use. I think the extension is a good idea ('level' is the
wrong word though as it is used in FRBR), and potentially useful in a
slightly different context. Think of collections and even databases. The
metadata about those is actual used very often in searches. Usually as
limits or filters, not as primary search criteria, but used. "Only search
databases with peer reviewed journals". "only government sources".
"databases covering the late 20th century". "images databases only".

Peter

Dr Peter Noerr
Chief Technical Officer
Museglobal, Inc.

tel: +1 801 208 1880
fax: +1 801 208 1889
cell:+1 801 910 4912

[log in to unmask]
www.museglobal.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: (Meta)*Data in CQL
>
>
> Here's an example illustration the FRBR model according to my
> interpretation.
>
> Take the Godfather: two manifestations are (1) the novel, and (2) the
> movie.
>
> Expressions of the novel would be the (1) English, (2) French.
> Mainfestations of the English expression of the novel would be (1) paper,
> (2) pdf, (3) html
>
> Expressions of the movie would be the (1) the original version,
> (2) the one
> they did for tv (ignore the fact that that they combined 1 and 2; I don't
> know how to represent that)
> Mainfestations of the original version might be film, video, dvd.
>
> An "item" is a single copy. If I buy the dvd and you buy the
> identical dvd
> it's two "items".
>
> I recommend looking at Barbara Tillet's paper at:
> http://www.ddb.de/professionell/pdf/frbr_ws_tillett.pdf
>
> --Ray
>
> "Tattaglia's a pimp. He never coulda outfought Santino. But I didn't know
> until this day, that it was Barzini all along."
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:51 AM
> Subject: Re: (Meta)*Data in CQL
>
>
> I have a hunch that life isn't going to be that simple.
>
> It might be worth reviewing the FRBR (Functional Requirements for
> Bibliographic Records) (I attach an extract of a presentation I gave at
> MPEG earlier in the year which provides a rough overview).
>
> FRBR defines four entities for an object:
>
> The work (e.g. the Chroniques of Jehan Friossart)
> The expression (e.g. the Chroniques of Jehan Friossary edited and
> translated by...)
> The manifestation (e.g. the Chroniques of Jehan Friossary edited and
> translated by... Online version)
> The item (e.g. the Chroniques of Jehan Friossary edited and translated
> by... On interactive DVD available at http://www....)
>
> The fact is that the metadata record is itself is a work and therefore
> the above categorisation is itself applicable to the metadata record
>
> E.g.
>
> The work (MARC record for the above created by LC Cataloguer)
> The expression (MARC record created by LC Cataloguer translated to
> French by...)
> The manifestation (MARC record created by ditto, translated by ditto,
> supplied in OAI MARC XML)
> The item (the MARC record downloadable from
> http://www.srw.org/sru?query...)
>
> So I'd argue that metadata versus data is a different axis for level
> than work versus instance one.
>
> However, I can't claim to be an expert in this area.
>
> The idea of capturing this in CQL is probably worthwhile but I think we
> need to get in some comments from cataloguers/metadata experts etc.
> rather than half cook something.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> > Sent: 18 August 2004 13:15
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: (Meta)*Data in CQL
> >
> > As Mike says, "One man's data is another's metadata."
> >
> > In Eliot's GILS set he makes a threefold distinction for bibliographic
> > data:
> >
> > The 'work' (eg The Chroniques of Jehan Froissart)
> > An instance (eg Pierpont Morgan M.804)
> > A catalog record (a surrogate in the Morgan catalog for the instance)
> >
> > Which seems a very reasonable distinction to make, and could
> > easily apply to non bibliographic data as well.
> > Each of these might have a date associated with it. A date
> > for the original, a date for the printing, and a date for the
> > cataloguing.
> > They all have different creators as well: Froissart, an
> > unknown scribe, and the cataloguer at the Morgan who
> > described the manuscript.
> >
> >
> > Currently in CQL we have the dc context set and a (somewhat
> > substandard) rec context set for metadata about records.
> > However this doesn't provide for anything other than
> > searching the catalog record and for information about that
> > record. We still have a modeling problem when it comes to
> > distinguishing the 'meta'ness of our data.
> >
> >
> > My proposal is to add a new relation modifier to the CQL
> > context set called, for example, 'level'
> > This would be used to determine the level of metaness to
> > apply the search at.
> >
> > For example, to use a simple case of author vs cataloguer:
> > dc.creator any/level=work "tolkien asimov"
> > dc.creator any/level=metadata "sanderson taylor"
> >
> > Or:
> > dc.date any/level=work "1336"
> > dc.date any/level=instance "1420"
> > dc.date any/level=metadata "2004"
> >
> > Then we can ditch a lot of the indexes from 'rec' which don't
> > sync well with the indexes from dc (for example)
> >
> > eg: rec.lang vs dc.language
> > rec.id vs dc.identifier
> > rec.createdBy vs dc.creator
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > ,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
> > ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
> > ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> > ,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
> > ____/:::::::::::::. L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
> > I L L U M I N A T I
> >
>