Print

Print


A small group of us made our comments on the FRBR-LRM (Library Reference 
Model) on an open WordPress blog[1], and yesterday sent our comments to 
the working group that issued the LRM.[2] For a quick overview (at least 
until I manage to cobble together a blog post), here is the executive 
summary of the document that we sent. Note that one of our questions 
was: how does this relate to BIBFRAME and other bibliographic efforts?

*


  Executive summary

An informal group of interested library professionals opened a 
discussion in blog format to encourage comments and public discussion of 
the FRBR-LRM. Attached is a lightly edited  transcript of that discussion.

Some of the comments here echo others that have been discussed on email 
lists or made public in other ways. This group, however, also provides 
some discussion of technical issues that we have not seen elsewhere.

Similar to other comments that we have seen there are criticisms of the 
choice to limit personto human beings. There are also discussions of the 
modeling of aggregates. Some of these will have also been included in 
the German Community Comments that you have received from the DNB.

The discussants were generally in support of eliminating the FRBR “group 
3” entities and making subject a relationship rather than a thing. There 
was praise for increased openness and the encouragement of extension of 
the model. The concept of representative expressions got a positive 
comment, although there remains some concern about how this will be 
implemented.

Key discussions in this document address the following major points:

 1.

    General

     1.

        There appear to be many assumptions behind this document that
        are not shared with its audience, including the overall context
        of the model. For example, it isn’t possible to understand what
        “mandatory” means in a conceptual model; is this intended as a
        model for actual library systems?

     2.

        As with FRBR, the user tasks are considered inadequate to
        express the complexity of user needs that a library catalog must
        attempt to satisfy. In addition, the term “tasks” has
        unfortunately implications in this context.

     3.

        The document uses terminology that is not defined (such as
        “entity” “domain” “range” and “disjoint”, although there are
        many others), and that imply particular technologies that are
        not themselves addressed.

     4.

        As defined, relationships seem to be an unexplained mixture of
        general relationships and specific ones.

     5.

        The model fails to clarify the position of aggregate works,
        expressions, and manifestations


 2.

    Technical comments

     1.

        The document shows some misunderstanding the of entity-relation
        model and the purpose of a conceptual model within that context.

     2.

        The document conflates conceptual modeling with physical
        modeling; these must be clearly separated for either to be coherent.

     3.

        The document conflates bibliographic data and administrative
        data about the metadata.

     4.

        Declaring entities as “disjoint” (or not) does not belong at the
        conceptual level but should be defined within applications if
        needed.

     5.

        There was discussion of the relationship of nomento the
        information technology concept of identifiers. No strong
        conclusion was reached except that the model must make clear the
        roles of “naming” and “identifying for machine actionability”.

     6.

        There are technical aspects of the relationships and the
        relationship diagrams that must be addressed, in particular
        relating to cardinality.

     7.

        The treatment of relationships and their inverses is dependent
        on the technology employed and does not need definition in the
        conceptual model.

     8.

        In an E-R model, sub-/super-class are special relationships
        because they imply inheritance. They should not be mixed with
        the entity-entity relationships.

     9.

        Attributes should be assigned after the conceptual model is
        completed. This model should be more clear on the definitions of
        the entities and should allow “next step” models define the
        attributes based on those definitions.

In addition, questions are posed which community members would like to 
see addressed before a model is finalized:

 1.

    What is the envisioned relationship with BIBFRAME and other
    bibliographic models being developed, both in the library community
    and in other communities with bibliographic data?

 2.

    Is the FRBR-LRM intended to be descriptive of the bibliographic
    universe, or is it intended to be prescriptive of library data that
    describes library resources?

 3.

    What is the motivation for the particular assignment of the
    attributes here? For example, work has one very general attribute,
    while expression has some format-specific attributes. It isn’t
    possible to understand this without knowing the thinking of the
    model designers.

 4. How is time-span to be used with single dates? With date ranges?
    What is its relationship to existing time standards?

*
kc
[1] https://frbropencomments.wordpress.com/
[2] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17VmDO3amfllHZ-Py0vwyKZxYMl_NjersTf2uDvibIxY/

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600