LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  January 2013

BIBFRAME January 2013

Subject:

Re: Bibframe, flexibility and FRBR

From:

Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:09:35 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (428 lines)

Hi Nancy,

I don't have a lot of time, but wanted to thank you for putting so much thought into this. My initial reaction is that you could model this situation this way, although on a quick skim I would do some of the details differently. 

My second thought is: so Bibframe plans to model FRBR's many-to-many relationship by creating duplicate instances for every work (expression?) in a manifestation? There are only two films in this example, but imagine fifteen short films or the fifty on Treasures from American Film Archives (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45184522). Currently, the only place I know that systematically does bound-withs for commercially-released videos is the UCLA Film & Television Archive. For example, they would have a record for every episode in a boxed set of a TV series. Each of those records has the same ISBN, the same publisher number, the same publisher and DVD release date, the same region code, the same special features and so on. In our current systems, this is a lot of extra work. Plus repeating the manifestation information in so many records is a maintenance nightmare if a mistake is discovered or new info comes to light. It would seem possible to improve this aspect of our interfaces. However, FRBR's many-to-many approach with a single manifestation/instance record linked to multiple expressions/works seems more intuitive and parsimonious to me. With multiple instances for what is the same physical object/manifestation in Bibframe, we would then have to link the library holdings to all of these instances (perhaps the introduction of items gets around this, but that just seems to push the many-to-many relationship down a level). In addition to reviewing movies, there are many DVD reviews out there. These would also presumably have to be linked to all the instances for the DVD.

Is there some reason why it is better for Bibframe to stick with a one-to-many relationship? Would a many-to-many approach somehow introduce a lot of undesirable complications?

Kelley

________________________________________
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe, flexibility and FRBR

Hi Kelley,

I'm a member of the Early Experimenters representing the National Library of Medicine.  Your posts have been greatly appreciated as they are thoughtful and constructive -- and have generated discussion among the EE's internally.  Perhaps sharing some of that discussion more broadly here will be helpful to everyone.

I think it's fair to say that the model as published in the Draft proposal is exactly that, a draft.  As a group, the EE's are collaborating to refine that draft, evaluating its merits and deficiencies and exploring changes.  Your post is timely in that we're still reviewing and looking for use cases to validate (or not) the statement that "Each BIBFRAME Instance is an instance of one and only one BIBFRAME Work."  Use cases like your Dracula films are helpful toward that end.

I'd like to offer up my own attempt at modeling the Dracula use case and confess that I did cheat a little and do some research on the 1931 Dracula films on IMdb.  It turns out that these are actually two distinct films: the Spanish language film has a different director and cast, but they were both filmed on the same set and at the same time.  From IMdb: "This Spanish-language version was filmed on the same sets and at the same time as the English-language, Bela Lugosi version of Dracula. The English-language version was filmed during the day, and the Spanish-language version was filmed at night." For more on the differences see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021815/faq#.2.1.2.  In addition, the writing credits at IMdb infer that both films were adaptations of the play by Deane and Balderston.   So, more than just language distinguishes these two films, which was not initially clear to me from your email.

Based on this additional info, I think that packaging the two films together is no different than binding copies of two distinct books together. i.e., these films happen to have a "boundwith" relationship in this packaging, but that may not always be true ("the English and Spanish language version of Dracula from 1931 are often packaged together").  Each book in a boundwith volume is a single item belonging to a distinct instance/manifestation (so they have distinct MARC records) but not every copy of that book is "boundwith" other books.  I would treat the two Dracula films the same way I'd treat a print boundwith.

As Jackie Shieh pointed out, each of the EE's approached the model from a slightly different perspective.  So, using a fuller RDA/FRBR definition of a work than stated in the BIBFRAME draft (i.e., defining a work as "... a distinct intellectual or artistic creation. A work is an abstract entity; there is no single material object one can point to as the work."), I might model your Dracula example like this:

(Please forgive the loose and abbreviated labeling of properties - these are not necessarily "official" BIBFRAME property labels, they are just used for expediency)

Work0 (w0)
Title: Dracula
Author: Bram Stoker

Work1 (w1):
Title: Dracula
Author:  Hamilton Deane
Author: John L. Balderston
Relationship: Is an adaptation of w0

Work2 (w2):
Title: Dracula
Director: Tod Browning
Relationship: Is an adaptation of w1

Instance1 (w2i1):
Produced: 1931
Producer: Universal Pictures
Language: English
Format: 16mm film?
Relationship: Is an instance of w2

Instance2 (w2i2):
Original production: 1931
Date distributed: 1999
Distributor: Universal
Format: DVD
Language soundtrack: English
Language captions: French
Relationship: Is a reformatted version of w2i1
Relationship: Is an instance of w2

Item1 (w2i2#1):
Barcode: 12345
Relationship: Is packaged with w3i2#1

Item2 (w2i2#2):
Barcode: 22345
[a copy of the same instance but not packaged with the Spanish version of the film]

Work3 (w3):
Title: Dracula
Director: George Melford
Relationship: Is an adaptation of w1

Instance1 (w3i1):
Produced: 1931
Producer: Universal Pictures
Language: Spanish
Format: 16mm film?
Relationship: is an instance of w3

Instance2 (w3i2):
Original production: 1931
Date distributed: 1999
Distributor: Universal
Format: DVD
Language soundtrack: Spanish
Language captions: French
Language captions: English
Relationship: Is a reformatted version of w3i1
Relationship: Is an instance of w3

Item1 (w3i2#1):
Barcode: 12345
Relationship: is packaged with w2i2#1

Modeled this way, each instance is an instance of just one work.  I'm not necessarily saying that the statement "Each BIBFRAME Instance is an instance of one and only one BIBFRAME Work" is always valid, just that I don't think this example necessarily demonstrates that the statement is not valid.  It would be great to have additional use cases that might prove the statement either way.

In regard to your FRBR dilemma, the above Dracula model includes expression data as part of the instance record (on the assumption that, if modeled well, it can be programmatically surfaced as needed) and leaves the work record free of data that would associate it with a single material object.  I've also taken liberties with the addition of "items" although the modeling of items and holdings is currently being explored by a subgroup of EE's.

I hope you find this response both helpful and thought provoking.

-Nancy


Nancy J. Fallgren
Metadata Specialist Librarian
Cataloging Section
National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD  20894-3823

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 23 Jan 2013 05:28:18 +0000
From:    Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Bibframe, flexibility and FRBR

Hi Eric,=0A=
=0A=
Belated thanks for your reply (and the incongruent image of a Cockney-imbue=
d version of Arrietty)=0A=
=0A=
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 thin=
gs often seem to be at odds.=0A=
=0A=
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 migh=
t in some cases also be useful to have what the FRBR working group is calli=
ng an aggregating work, but I don't think it can take the place of describi=
ng the separate expressions/works. And yet, this seems more like the option=
 that Bibframe is supplying. Is this a place where Bibframe consciously div=
erged from FRBR and does it mean that FRBR can't be fully implemented in Bi=
bframe?=0A=
=0A=
Kelley=0A=
=0A=
> For example, the English and Spanish language version of Dracula from 193=
1 are often packaged together.=0A=
>=0A=
> Work 1                Expression 1                        Manifestation=
=0A=
> Dracula (1931)    English soundtrack                DVD (1999)=0A=
> English                French subtitles                    1 disc=0A=
>                                                                     ISBN =
 0783227450=0A=
> Work 2                Expression 2                        OCLC# 46829789=
=0A=
> Dracula (1931)    Spanish soundtrack=0A=
> Spanish                English and French subtitles=0A=
>=0A=
> Without a separate expression level, it is unclear how to prevent the wro=
ng connections from being made (work 1 has English subtitles or work 2 has =
an English soundtrack)=0A=
>=0A=
> Work 1                        Version=0A=
> Dracula (1931)            DVD (1999)=0A=
> English                        1 disc=0A=
>                                     ISBN  0783227450=0A=
> Work 2                        OCLC# 46829789=0A=
> Dracula (1931)            English soundtrack=0A=
> Spanish                        French subtitles=0A=
>                                     Spanish soundtrack=0A=
>                                     English and French subtitles=0A=
=0A=
The fact you're separating these out as 2 separate "things" (wether you cal=
l it Work or Expression) is a critical step in supporting such disambiguati=
on. MARC / AACR* conflates this and over time, various conventions have bee=
n introduced to try and minimize this ambiguity but, as you've pointed in t=
he case of moving pictures, audio, etc. this is still a huge issue.=0A=
=0A=
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 not=
ed that not everything need be described at once.  If these Works are packa=
ged together (and one wants to describe the package), we might think about =
this package as its own Work with its specific characteristics. The key her=
e is to allow a model to evolve and allow contextual relationships that rel=
ate these Works together be introduced as needed.=0A=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [BIBFRAME@LISTSER=
V.LOC.GOV] on behalf of Eric Miller [[log in to unmask]]=0A=
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 12:26 PM=0A=
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe, flexibility and FRBR=0A=
=0A=
On Jan 6, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]> wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> I would also like to get a sense of the flexibility of Bibframe, especial=
ly as it relates to FRBR. It makes sense to me that Bibframe is not explici=
tly 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.=
=0A=
=0A=
Correct.=0A=
=0A=
> My (and at least some other people's) initial impression of the mapping o=
f FRBR group 1 entities to Bibframe was that it would be something like=0A=
>=0A=
> Work =3D work + expression=0A=
> Instance =3D manifestation=0A=
>=0A=
> It appears from the actual examples, that the mapping is more like=0A=
>=0A=
> Work =3D work=0A=
> Instance =3D expression + manifestation=0A=
> Holdings (annotation) sort of =3D item=0A=
>=0A=
> Interestingly, this essentially two-level mapping is very similar to what=
 OLAC did for our prototype interface for moving images (https://blazing-su=
nset-24.heroku.com/).=0A=
=0A=
It's surprisingly more common than one might think.=0A=
=0A=
> Movie =3D work + primary (usually original) expression=0A=
> Version =3D current expression + manifestation=0A=
>=0A=
> We had a table for libraries and items were modeled as a relationship bet=
ween libraries and versions (manifestations), which I think is essentially =
similar to Bibframe's holdings. The attributes of the items could then be h=
ung off the relationship.=0A=
=0A=
I would be interested in any additional details you might be able to share =
on this point.=0A=
=0A=
>  The reasons we took this approach were practical. Most of the attributes=
 of expressions for commercial videos are what I think of as independent va=
riables. 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 t=
o what other language options are available. For every new manifestation, t=
he 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 ti=
me over just adding them to the manifestation record. This two-level approa=
ch (we presented item location as a version attribute) also worked well for=
 display to the public.=0A=
=0A=
How to display BIBFRAME data to patrons / users has yet to be fully explore=
d but we've balanced the user centered search + discovery process in from t=
he start. As part of the python MARC2bibframe codebase available on github,=
 for example, we've included a simple end user interface to show one exampl=
e of how this might look.=0A=
=0A=
- https://github.com/lcnetdev/marc2bibframe/blob/master/python/html/exhibit=
.html=0A=
=0A=
We're using this interface this over several 1000+ MARC->BIBFRAME record ex=
amples 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 h=
ave contributed their sample collections are listed here=0A=
=0A=
- http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/news/bibframe-112312.html=0A=
=0A=
> However, it turned out that there were a couple situations in which this =
model did not work so well.=0A=
>=0A=
> One is when there are multiple works on a manifestation and the expressio=
n values (such as language) related to each work vary. There was no easy wa=
y in our model to represent this.=0A=
>=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
> 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 s=
oundtrack), but rather a cluster of attributes that are inherently related =
and need to be reused together. For commercial videos, these are usually di=
stinct intellectual or artistic versions (rather than things like dubbed so=
undtracks that are meant to be substitutions for accessibility). For exampl=
e, 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.=0A=
>=0A=
> Work                           Expression                               M=
anifestation=0A=
> Blade runner (1982)   Final cut (2007)                       DVD (2007)=
=0A=
>                                     117 min.                             =
     2 discs=0A=
>                                     Review:                              =
     ISBN 9781419850028=0A=
>                                     http://goo.gl/UgMQe             OCLC#=
 173522015=0A=
=0A=
Again an alternative interpretation of this is that Blade runner (the theat=
rical release) and Blade Runner (the extended / much better directors cut) =
are simply 2 different Works each of which share contextual relationships t=
o common resources (actors, directors, etc. etc.).  In the Work associated =
with the theatrical release, I would expect to see that Editor you mentione=
d.=0A=
=0A=
In this case, the separation into different Works is important for several =
reasons, but one is simply they have very different Instances associated wi=
th them. The theatrical release came out in VHS, Beta, LaserDisc, etc. whil=
e the Directors cut was released later in DVD, BluRay, etc.  I'm a bit emba=
rrassed to say I have just about all of these ;)=0A=
=0A=
> There are also rare cases where even for information that we would normal=
ly consider as an isolated, independent variable, there is additional infor=
mation 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 offere=
d for comparison two different English subtitle tracks translated by two di=
fferent scholars.=0A=
=0A=
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 co=
ckney accent) is included in the Miyazaki collection that played over and o=
ver this holiday break. My children found this version to be a very differe=
nt experience from the other US based / big name voice cast we have. ;)=0A=
=0A=
- http://www.amazon.com/2012-Studio-Ghibli-Collection-Titles/dp/B0081UEWI2/=
ref=3Dsr_1_3?ie=3DUTF8&qid=3D1357745050&sr=3D8-3&keywords=3DMiyazaki=0A=
=0A=
In this case, I'd assert there are 3 separate Works (the original in japane=
se, the one dubbed into en-uk and the one dubbed into en-us which include t=
he voices of various famous actors, etc.).=0A=
=0A=
> Expressions that consist of a cluster of related attributes are particula=
rly important for musical expressions (performers, conductor, location, dat=
e, arrangement) and also some literary works.=0A=
>=0A=
> It is also unclear to me whether it is possible to realize the full poten=
tial of RDA without the ability to encode all the FRBR group 1 entities sep=
arately.=0A=
>=0A=
> I can see why the focus on translation from MARC led to the existing mode=
l. 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 eve=
n with manual review.=0A=
=0A=
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 b=
alance the following:=0A=
=0A=
[[=0A=
* Flexibility to accommodate future cataloguing domains, and entirely new u=
se scenarios and sources of information=0A=
* The Web as an architectural model for expressing and connecting decentral=
ized information=0A=
* Social and technical adoption outside the Library community=0A=
* Social and technical deployment within the Library community=0A=
* Previous efforts in expressing bibliographic material as Linked Data=0A=
* Application of machine technology for mechanical tasks while amply accomm=
odating the subject matter expert (the librarian) as the explicit brain beh=
ind the mechanics.=0A=
* Previous efforts for modeling bibliographic information in the library, p=
ublishing, archival and museum communities=0A=
* The robust and beneficial history and aspects of a common method of bibli=
ographic information transfer=0A=
]]=0A=
- http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/pdf/marcld-report-11-21-2012.pdf=0A=
=0A=
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 b=
rowsers, more tools, more examples, etc. are made available i anticipate a =
shift in the dialog.=0A=
=0A=
>  However, it seems to me that Bibframe does need to support the separatio=
n of all the WEMI entities, as well as the best possible environment for en=
tering 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 inst=
ance record that only describes the manifestation and that is linked as fol=
lows:=0A=
>=0A=
> Bibframe Work (FRBR work) --> Bibframe Work (FRBR expression) --> Bibfram=
e Instance (FRBR manifestation)=0A=
=0A=
The above model is certainly accomplishable from a BIBFRAME perspective. Th=
e named relationships e.g "-->" however are critical. What we call these Cl=
asses is important, but more so are the relationships that contextualize th=
em.=0A=
=0A=
(Thing -- hasExpression --> Thing) conveys some meaning.  But if hasExpress=
ion is a high level, general relationship that is a surrogate for more usef=
ul detail, I'd encourage the use of richer relationships.=0A=
=0A=
(Thing -- hasTranslation | hasVariant | hasPart | isBasisFor, etc. --> Thin=
g) conveys more useful and actionable context. In a Linked Data / Web envir=
onment, theses contextual relationships are key.=0A=
=0A=
> I also wonder how hardcoded the mapping of attributes to Bibframe classes=
 is going to be.=0A=
=0A=
The initial code bases build their mappings from declarative mapping tables=
. Quick changes to these tables change the results. I would like to see thi=
s be abstracted away in place of a more configurable, end user interface to=
 allow more customized, collection-specific mappings to be performed. Unfor=
tunately, we're just not there yet.=0A=
=0A=
> For example, there was a post that suggested that actors would probably b=
e mapped to instances.=0A=
=0A=
While different groups are exploring different ways of modeling this, In th=
e current BIBFRAME model (and from my perspective) that would be incorrect.=
 Actors (1xx, 7xx) would be defined as relationships contextualizing Works =
and People.=0A=
=0A=
> 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 as=
sociated with the work. This also makes sense from the point of view of eff=
icient data modeling since we want to reuse the list of actors from the wor=
k record in all instances rather than recording them redundantly at the ins=
tance level. Will there be any mechanism in Bibframe to accommodate differi=
ng viewpoints such as these?=0A=
=0A=
Yes (but in this particular case I think there is a shared viewpoint).=0A=
=0A=
Thanks for your insightful email. I hope this response helps.=0A=
=0A=
--=0A=
Eric Miller=0A=
President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"=0A=
http://zepheira.com/ tel:+1.617.395.0229=0A=

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager