On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:26:07 -0500, Eric Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>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
>> 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-
>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.
>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
>> 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.
>> 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
>> 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
>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.
>> 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
>> Blade runner (1982) Final cut (2007) DVD (2007)
>> 117 min.
>> http://goo.gl/UgMQe OCLC#
>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.
>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
>> 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
>* 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
>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
>(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.
>President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"