Hi Eric,
Belated thanks for your reply (and the incongruent image of a Cockney-imbued version of Arrietty)
I am glad to hear Bibframe is intended to be so flexible. However, I wonder if you could say more about how you plan to reconcile all this flexibility with the interoperability needed in a communication format? Those two things often seem to be at odds.
I also have a follow up question about the statement in the November report "Each BIBFRAME Instance is an instance of one and only one BIBFRAME Work." In the FRBR model manifestations can be linked to many expressions so how do you represent a manifestation (instance) embodying multiple expressions (works) in Bibframe? In situations like the Dracula DVD described below in my original post, I don't see a practical way to do what I want to do with the data without linking the instance/manifestation/publication to separate expressions for the two movies. Of course, aggregate works are thorny and the FRBR working group took years to get to their final report: http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf. It might in some cases also be useful to have what the FRBR working group is calling an aggregating work, but I don't think it can take the place of describing the separate expressions/works. And yet, this seems more like the option that Bibframe is supplying. Is this a place where Bibframe consciously diverged from FRBR and does it mean that FRBR can't be fully implemented in Bibframe?
Kelley
> For example, the English and Spanish language version of Dracula from 1931 are often packaged together.
>
> Work 1 Expression 1 Manifestation
> Dracula (1931) English soundtrack DVD (1999)
> English French subtitles 1 disc
> ISBN 0783227450
> Work 2 Expression 2 OCLC# 46829789
> Dracula (1931) Spanish soundtrack
> Spanish English and French subtitles
>
> Without a separate expression level, it is unclear how to prevent the wrong connections from being made (work 1 has English subtitles or work 2 has an English soundtrack)
>
> Work 1 Version
> Dracula (1931) DVD (1999)
> English 1 disc
> ISBN 0783227450
> Work 2 OCLC# 46829789
> Dracula (1931) English soundtrack
> Spanish French subtitles
> Spanish soundtrack
> English and French subtitles
The fact you're separating these out as 2 separate "things" (wether you call it Work or Expression) is a critical step in supporting such disambiguation. MARC / AACR* conflates this and over time, various conventions have been introduced to try and minimize this ambiguity but, as you've pointed in the case of moving pictures, audio, etc. this is still a huge issue.
Separating these Works out as first class resources is a first step. While the granularity of descriptive practices will be an issue, it should be noted that not everything need be described at once. If these Works are packaged together (and one wants to describe the package), we might think about this package as its own Work with its specific characteristics. The key here is to allow a model to evolve and allow contextual relationships that relate these Works together be introduced as needed.
________________________________________
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Eric Miller [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe, flexibility and FRBR
On Jan 6, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would also like to get a sense of the flexibility of Bibframe, especially as it relates to FRBR. It makes sense to me that Bibframe is not explicitly tied to the FBRB model. It needs to be hospitable to many types of data, all of which will not be modeled on or necessarily compatible with FRBR.
Correct.
> My (and at least some other people's) initial impression of the mapping of FRBR group 1 entities to Bibframe was that it would be something like
>
> Work = work + expression
> Instance = manifestation
>
> It appears from the actual examples, that the mapping is more like
>
> Work = work
> Instance = expression + manifestation
> Holdings (annotation) sort of = item
>
> Interestingly, this essentially two-level mapping is very similar to what OLAC did for our prototype interface for moving images (https://blazing-sunset-24.heroku.com/).
It's surprisingly more common than one might think.
> Movie = work + primary (usually original) expression
> Version = current expression + manifestation
>
> We had a table for libraries and items were modeled as a relationship between libraries and versions (manifestations), which I think is essentially similar to Bibframe's holdings. The attributes of the items could then be hung off the relationship.
I would be interested in any additional details you might be able to share on this point.
> The reasons we took this approach were practical. Most of the attributes of expressions for commercial videos are what I think of as independent variables. That is, the fact that this DVD has a French subtitle track has no necessary connection to the fact that it has a full screen expression or to what other language options are available. For every new manifestation, the individual values for these types of expression have to be verified anew and linking up to some sort of existing expression record would save no time over just adding them to the manifestation record. This two-level approach (we presented item location as a version attribute) also worked well for display to the public.
How to display BIBFRAME data to patrons / users has yet to be fully explored but we've balanced the user centered search + discovery process in from the start. As part of the python MARC2bibframe codebase available on github, for example, we've included a simple end user interface to show one example of how this might look.
- https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe/blob/master/python/html/exhibit.html
We're using this interface this over several 1000+ MARC->BIBFRAME record examples from various collections donated by the Early Experiments to explore their data. It's been quite a useful exercise and one I hope that will be made public shortly. FYI, the list of the various Early Experimenters who have contributed their sample collections are listed here
- http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/bibframe-112312.html
> However, it turned out that there were a couple situations in which this model did not work so well.
>
> One is when there are multiple works on a manifestation and the expression values (such as language) related to each work vary. There was no easy way in our model to represent this.
>
> The second case is when the expression isn't really a single independent variable (or couple of closely related ones such as French Dolby surround soundtrack), but rather a cluster of attributes that are inherently related and need to be reused together. For commercial videos, these are usually distinct intellectual or artistic versions (rather than things like dubbed soundtracks that are meant to be substitutions for accessibility). For example, a director's cut would usually have a duration associated with it and we might also know of a date or an editor. It might also need its own summary and would be connected to its own reviews or other annotations.
>
> Work Expression Manifestation
> Blade runner (1982) Final cut (2007) DVD (2007)
> 117 min. 2 discs
> Review: ISBN 9781419850028
> http://goo.gl/UgMQe OCLC# 173522015
Again an alternative interpretation of this is that Blade runner (the theatrical release) and Blade Runner (the extended / much better directors cut) are simply 2 different Works each of which share contextual relationships to common resources (actors, directors, etc. etc.). In the Work associated with the theatrical release, I would expect to see that Editor you mentioned.
In this case, the separation into different Works is important for several reasons, but one is simply they have very different Instances associated with them. The theatrical release came out in VHS, Beta, LaserDisc, etc. while the Directors cut was released later in DVD, BluRay, etc. I'm a bit embarrassed to say I have just about all of these ;)
> There are also rare cases where even for information that we would normally consider as an isolated, independent variable, there is additional information that one would want to keep together. For example, many of Miyazaki's animated films have been dubbed into English with big name voice casts. I once came across a Criterion Collection DVD of a Japanese film that offered for comparison two different English subtitle tracks translated by two different scholars.
Ha! It may be a rare case, but the fact there are 2 *different* dubbed into English versions of Miyazaki's "The Secret World of Arrietty" has caused all sorts of problems for my kids. The en-uk dubbed version (with slight cockney accent) is included in the Miyazaki collection that played over and over this holiday break. My children found this version to be a very different experience from the other US based / big name voice cast we have. ;)
- http://www.amazon.com/2012-Studio-Ghibli-Collection-Titles/dp/B0081UEWI2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1357745050&sr=8-3&keywords=Miyazaki
In this case, I'd assert there are 3 separate Works (the original in japanese, the one dubbed into en-uk and the one dubbed into en-us which include the voices of various famous actors, etc.).
> Expressions that consist of a cluster of related attributes are particularly important for musical expressions (performers, conductor, location, date, arrangement) and also some literary works.
>
> It is also unclear to me whether it is possible to realize the full potential of RDA without the ability to encode all the FRBR group 1 entities separately.
>
> I can see why the focus on translation from MARC led to the existing model. It is clearly the most practical approach for legacy data. Although many researchers have tried, no one has found an effective way to automate the identification of expressions in legacy data. It is not always possible even with manual review.
Agreed. And that is why the translation from MARC is only one of several of the factors that went into the BIBFRAME design. For BIBFRAME we tried to balance the following:
[[
* Flexibility to accommodate future cataloguing domains, and entirely new use scenarios and sources of information
* The Web as an architectural model for expressing and connecting decentralized information
* Social and technical adoption outside the Library community
* Social and technical deployment within the Library community
* Previous efforts in expressing bibliographic material as Linked Data
* Application of machine technology for mechanical tasks while amply accommodating the subject matter expert (the librarian) as the explicit brain behind the mechanics.
* Previous efforts for modeling bibliographic information in the library, publishing, archival and museum communities
* The robust and beneficial history and aspects of a common method of bibliographic information transfer
]]
- http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf
The current BIBFRAME list discussion as focused on the translation to MARC (i believe) simply because sample translation code has been made available. As cataloging use-cases, end-user scenarios (very important), vocabulary browsers, more tools, more examples, etc. are made available i anticipate a shift in the dialog.
> However, it seems to me that Bibframe does need to support the separation of all the WEMI entities, as well as the best possible environment for entering new data going forward. Perhaps there could be some parallel way to allow the creation of a Bibframe work record for an expression with an instance record that only describes the manifestation and that is linked as follows:
>
> Bibframe Work (FRBR work) --> Bibframe Work (FRBR expression) --> Bibframe Instance (FRBR manifestation)
The above model is certainly accomplishable from a BIBFRAME perspective. The named relationships e.g "-->" however are critical. What we call these Classes is important, but more so are the relationships that contextualize them.
(Thing -- hasExpression --> Thing) conveys some meaning. But if hasExpression is a high level, general relationship that is a surrogate for more useful detail, I'd encourage the use of richer relationships.
(Thing -- hasTranslation | hasVariant | hasPart | isBasisFor, etc. --> Thing) conveys more useful and actionable context. In a Linked Data / Web environment, theses contextual relationships are key.
> I also wonder how hardcoded the mapping of attributes to Bibframe classes is going to be.
The initial code bases build their mappings from declarative mapping tables. Quick changes to these tables change the results. I would like to see this be abstracted away in place of a more configurable, end user interface to allow more customized, collection-specific mappings to be performed. Unfortunately, we're just not there yet.
> For example, there was a post that suggested that actors would probably be mapped to instances.
While different groups are exploring different ways of modeling this, In the current BIBFRAME model (and from my perspective) that would be incorrect. Actors (1xx, 7xx) would be defined as relationships contextualizing Works and People.
> For film actors, this is counter to the approach that makes sense to the moving image cataloging community. The majority of film actors should be associated with the work. This also makes sense from the point of view of efficient data modeling since we want to reuse the list of actors from the work record in all instances rather than recording them redundantly at the instance level. Will there be any mechanism in Bibframe to accommodate differing viewpoints such as these?
Yes (but in this particular case I think there is a shared viewpoint).
Thanks for your insightful email. I hope this response helps.
--
Eric Miller
President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"
http://zepheira.com/ tel:+1.617.395.0229
|
