Print

Print


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 
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.ht
ml
>
>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.
>>  
>> 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. 
>
>> 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
>========================================================================