Definition of Object-Oriented frbr

6.3. Amendments to Version 2.0 (18th FRBR – CIDOC CRM)

R14 incorporates (is incorporated in)

In the 18th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting joined with the 24th meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9, it is decided that R14 is also subproperty of P106 is composed of (forms part of. This decision produced the following changes in the document:

Page 64: The P106 was been added to the Subproperty section of the definition of R14

Page 35: The R14 is declared to Subproperty of P106 in the table of FRBROO Property Hierarchy aligned with (part of) CIDOC CRM Property Hierarchy

This is related to the issue 192

R15 has fragment (is fragment of)

In the 18th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting joined with the 24th meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9, it is decided that R15 is not subproperty of P148 has component (is component of).

The class F12 Name

During the harmonization process of FRSAD with CIDOC CRM and considering that FRSAD Nomen is more general than FRBR Name. and it is decided to change the name of the class from Name to Nomen and to be subclass of E41.This decision created the following changes:

Page 28: In the FRBR_OO Class Hierarchy table, name change

Page 30,31: In the FRBRoo Class Hierarchy aligned with CIDOC CRM table, name-super class change

Page 32,44,61,62, name change

Page 78,79,80,86,90: In the List of mappings of FRBRER, name change

Page 145: in Chapter 7.3, name change

Page 154: In Property Hierarchy, name change

Page 160: In the example of 147, name change

F11 is subclass of E40

Proofreading

Page 10: The word “draft” is deleted from the first sentence in the introduction.

Page 19: In c. the code number of the relation R5 has been corrected from R15 to R5 and the figure 6 is updated.

Page 28: The class hierarchy of F16 Container work and F21 Recording Work has been corrected

Page 32, 35 : In the line of R15, the domain and the range of the property has been corrected by interchanging them. This produced the following changes:

Page 19: In item b, the domain and the range of the property R15 has been corrected

Page 49: the declared property R15 in the definition of F23 has been deleted

Page 38: the R15 has been added to the properties of F2

Page 64: The domain and the range of the property R15 has been corrected by interchanging them

Page 38: The underline has been removed from the text “The signs which make up” in the fourth example of F2

Page 42: the text “that was used to create a bibliographic record for that publication” from the second example of F9 has been dropped.

6.4 Amendments to Version 2.0 (20th FRBR – CIDOC CRM)

In the 20th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting joined with the 26th meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9, the following changes have been.

1 Introduction

The text is changed:
FROM:

This document is the definition of FRBR⁹ object-oriented version, harmonised with CIDOC CRM, hereafter referred to as FRBR_OO, a formal ontology intended to capture and represent the underlying semantics of bibliographic information and to facilitate the integration, mediation, and interchange of bibliographic and museum information. Such a common view is necessary to provide interoperable information systems for those users interested in accessing common or related content. Beyond that, it results in a formalisation which is more suited for the implementation of FRBR concepts with object-oriented tools, and which facilitates the testing and adoption of FRBR concepts in implementations with different functional specifications and different environments. It applies empirical analysis and ontological structure to the entities and processes associated with works, to their properties, and to the relationships among them. Thereby it reveals a web of interrelationships, which is also applicable to information objects in non-bibliographic arenas¹⁰, and is useful to justify the need of information elements in different environments.

The FRBR model was originally designed as an entity-relationship model by a study group appointed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) during the period 1991-1997, and was published in 1998. The original entity-relationship definition of FRBR is referred to hereafter as FRBR_ER.

Quite independently, the CIDOC CRM¹¹ model was being developed from 1996 under the auspices of the ICOM-CIDOC (International Council for Museums – International Committee on Documentation) Documentation Standards Working Group. The definition of the CIDOC CRM model has now become ISO standard 21127.

The idea that both the library and museum communities might benefit from harmonising the two models was first expressed in 2000, on the occasion of ELAG’s (European Library Automation Group) 24th Library Systems Seminar in Paris, with Nicholas Crofts and Dan Matei drafting on the spot a preliminary object-oriented representation of the FRBR model entities roughly mapped to CIDOC CRM classes. This idea grew up in the following years and eventually led to the formation in 2003 of the International Working Group on FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation, that brings together representatives from both communities with the common goals of: a) Expressing the IFLA FRBR model with the concepts, tools, mechanisms, and notation conventions provided by the CIDOC CRM, and: b) Aligning (possibly even merging) the two object-oriented models thus obtained.

The International Working Group on FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation, chaired by Martin Doerr (ICS FORTH, Greece) and Patrick Le Bœuf (BnF, France), is affiliated at the same time to the IFLA FRBR Review Group and the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group (CRM-SIG). The present definition of FRBR_OO was developed through email exchange among members of the Working Group, and more importantly during the following series of meetings:

• 
  Meeting #1: 2003, Nov. 12-14, Paris;
  
• 
  Meeting #2: 2004, March 22-25, Heraklion, Greece;
  
• 
  Meeting #3: 2005, February 14-16, London;
  
• 
  Meeting #4: 2005, July 4-6, Heraklion, Greece;
  
• 
  Meeting #5: 2005, November 16-18, Nuremberg, Germany;
  
• 
  Meeting #6: 2006, March 27-29, London;
  
• 
  Meeting #7: 2006, June 26-29, Trondheim, Norway;
  
• 
  Meeting #8: 2006, October 25-27, Heraklion, Greece;
  
• 
  Meeting #9: 2007, March 14-16, Paris;
  
• 
  Meeting #10: 2007, July 9-10, Edinburgh, Scotland;
  
• 
  Meeting #11: 2007, December 4-7, Nuremberg, Germany;
  
• 
  Meeting #12: 2008, May 12-15, Heraklion, Greece;
  
• 
  Meeting #13: 2008, November 5-7, London;
  
• 
  Meeting #14: 2009, May 20-22, London;
  
• 
  Meeting #15: 2010, January 27, Helsinki;
  
• 
  Meeting #16: 2010, December 20-22, Nuremberg;
  
• 
  Meeting #17: 2011, May 17-20, Heraklion, Greece;
  
• 
  Meeting #18: 2011, November 14-17, Amsterdam;
  
• 
  Meeting #19:2011, April 30-May 2, Heraklion, Greece.
  

More information on the activities of the Group can be found on http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/wgfrbr/FRBR-CRMdialogue_wg.htm and on http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/frbr_inro.html.

We express our gratitude to the European funded Project DELOS NoE for providing financial help for several of these meetings.
TO:

This document is the definition of the object-oriented version of the FRBR¹² family of conceptual models¹³, harmonised with CIDOC CRM, hereafter referred to as FRBR_OO, a formal ontology that captures and represents the underlying semantics of bibliographic information and therefore facilitates the integration, mediation, and interchange of bibliographic and museum information. Such a common view is necessary for the development of interoperable information systems serving users interested in accessing common or related content. Beyond that, it results in a formalisation which is more suited for the implementation of concepts from the FRBR family of conceptual models with object-oriented tools, and which facilitates the testing and adoption of these concepts in implementations with different functional specifications and beyond the library domain. It applies empirical analysis and ontological structure to the entities and processes associated with the bibliographic universe, to their properties, and to the relationships among them. It thereby reveals a web of interrelationships, which are also applicable to information objects in non-bibliographic arenas¹⁴.

The FRBR model was designed as an entity-relationship model by a study group appointed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) during the period 1991-1997, it was approved by the IFLA Cataloguing Section in 1997, and was published in 1998. The original entity-relationship definition of FRBR is referred to hereafter as FRBR_ER.

Quite independently, the CIDOC CRM¹⁵ model was being developed, beginning in 1996, under the auspices of the ICOM-CIDOC (International Council for Museums – International Committee on Documentation) Documentation Standards Working Group. The definition of the CIDOC CRM model was adopted as ISO standard 21127.¹⁶

The idea that both the library and museum communities might benefit from harmonising their two models was first expressed in 2000, on the occasion of ELAG’s (European Library Automation Group) 24th Library Systems Seminar in Paris. This idea led to the formation, in 2003, of the International Working Group on FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation, that brings together representatives from both communities with the common goals of: a) Expressing the IFLA FRBR model with the concepts, tools, mechanisms, and notation conventions provided by the CIDOC CRM, and: b) Aligning (possibly even merging) the two object-oriented models thus obtained.

The International Working Group on FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation, chaired by Martin Doerr (ICS FORTH, Greece) and Patrick Le Bœuf (BnF, France) [and Pat Riva?], is affiliated at the same time to the IFLA FRBR Review Group and the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group (CRM-SIG). The present definition of FRBR_OO was developed through email exchange among members of the Working Group, and more importantly during a series of meetings.

Version 1.0 of FRBR_OO was finally approved and issued in January 2010; it covered the entities and concepts from FRBR and included an appendix on identifier creation. The focus of later meetings has been to extend the model to fully encompass the published versions of the FRAD and FRSAD models. Version 2.0 is the result of this expansion.

More information on the activities of the Group, minutes of the meetings and all previous versions can be found on http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/wgfrbr/FRBR-CRMdialogue_wg.htm and on http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/frbr_ inro.html.

1.1 Purposes

The text is changed:
FROM:

This model attempts to represent FRBR by modelling in a sufficiently consistent way the conceptualisation of the reality behind library practice, as it is apparent from or implicit in FRBR. It is important to keep in mind that the aim is not to transform the IFLA FRBR model into something totally different or better, nor of course to reject it or replace it – but to express the conceptualisation of FRBR with the object-oriented methodology instead of the entity-relationship methodology, as an alternative. Nor is it the intention to force museums’ concerns and viewpoints into the bibliographic universe, or libraries’ concerns and viewpoints into the museum universe. Rather, the point is to identify the common ground in the universe both sides share and to ensure mutual benefit by pursuing the following objectives.

TO:

This model represents FRBR, FRAD and FRSAD through modelling the conceptualisation of the reality behind library practice, as it is apparent from or implicit in the FRBR family of models. It is important to keep in mind that the aim is not to transform the IFLA models into something conceptually different, but to express the conceptualisation of the FRBR family within the object-oriented methodology instead of the entity-relationship methodology. Furthermore, the intention is to identify the common ground that memory institutions share and to exploit it by pursuing the following objectives

1.1.2 A verification of FRBR’s internal consistency

The text is changed:
FROM:
Expressing the FRBR models in a different formalism than the one in which it was originally developed provides a means to evaluate the model in terms of its internal consistency. It is also a good opportunity to correct some semantic inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the formulation of FRBR that may be regarded as negligible when FRBR_ER is only used in a library catalogue context, but that prove to be quite crucial from the moment one strives to design an overall model for the integration of cultural heritage related information.
TO:
Expressing the FRBR family in a different formalism than the one in which it was originally developed provides a means to evaluate the models in terms of their internal consistency. It is also a good opportunity to make adjustments to avoid some semantic inconsistencies and imprecisions in the formulation of the FRBR family, which prove to be crucial in the design of an overall model for the integration of cultural heritage related information. Additionally, the clarifications helped in the further development of the FRBR model itself, such as the interpretation of aggregates and aggregating work and understanding the dual nature of Manifestation.

1.1.3 An enablement of information interoperability and integration

The last sentence is changed:
FROM

Besides, CIDOC CRM is explicitly compatible in formalism with the World Wide Web Consortium’s Resource Description Framework (RDF), which can only be beneficial for FRBR

TO

Besides, CIDOC CRM is explicitly compatible in formalism with the World Wide Web Consortium’s Resource Description Framework (RDF), which is also beneficial for the IFLA models

1.1.5 An extension of the scope of FRBR and the CIDOC CRM

The text is changed in the last sentence:
FROM:

…Consequently, it also extends the scope of FRBR to cultural materials, since FRBR inherits all concepts of the CIDOC CRM, and opens the way for FRBR to benefit from further extensions of the scope of CIDOC CRM, such as the scientific heritage of observations and experiments.

TO:

…Consequently, it also extends the scope of the FRBR family of conceptual models to cultural materials, since FRBR_OO inherits all concepts of the CIDOC CRM, and opens the way for the IFLA models to benefit from further extensions of the scope of CIDOC CRM, such as the scientific heritage of observations and experiments.

1.1.7 Understanding the attributes and relationships

The text is changed
FROM:

… FRBR_ER. During its meetings, the International Working Group on FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation strove to extract their semantics as accurately as possible, to express them as “properties” in the sense of CIDOC CRM, and to compare them with possibly existing CIDOC CRM properties. Entities, or classes in the terminology adopted by the CIDOC CRM, play a nearly secondary role as the maximal sets of things for which a property is applicable.

TO:

… FRBR family. During its meetings, the International Working Group on FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation strove to extract the semantics as accurately as possible, to express them as “properties” in the sense of CIDOC CRM, and to relate them to CIDOC CRM properties where possible. Entities, or classes in the terminology adopted by the CIDOC CRM, play a nearly secondary role as the maximal sets of things for which a property is applicable.

1.1.8 Transforming attributes into properties

The text is changed:

FROM:

The CIDOC CRM model declares no “attributes” at all (except implicitly in its “scope notes” for classes), but regards any information element as a “property” (or “relationship”) between two classes. The semantics extracted from FRBR_ER attributes are therefore rendered in FRBR_OO as properties, according to the same principles as the CIDOC CRM model.

TO:

The CIDOC CRM model declares no “attributes” at all, but regards any information element as a “property” (or “relationship”) between two classes. The semantics extracted from FRBR_ER, FRAD and FRSAD attributes are therefore rendered in FRBR_OO as properties, according to the same principles as the CIDOC CRM model.

1.1.10 By-product 2: Adding a bibliographic flavour to CIDOC CRM

The text is changed
FROM:

The second by-product was that the analysis provided for bibliographic processes in FRBR_OO paved the way to the introduction of refinements into CIDOC CRM, so that the museum community’s model could give a better account for mass production phenomena (such as the printing of engravings, for instance), or the relation between creating immaterial content and physical carrier. Further, it introduces a basic model of intellectual conception and derivation applicable to all art forms, which the museum community has been hesitating so far to formally analyse. (MD)

TO:

The second by-product was that the analysis provided for bibliographic processes in FRBR_OO and for the processes of naming entities in FRAD and FRSAD, paved the way for the introduction of refinements in the CIDOC CRM. This enabled the museum community’s model to give a better account of mass production phenomena (such as the printing of engravings), the relation between creating immaterial content and physical carriers and the practices of identifying or naming things. Further, it introduces a basic model of intellectual conception and derivation applicable to all art forms, which the museum community had been hesitating to formally analyse.

1.2.1 Introduction of temporal entities, events and time processes

The text in the first two paragraphs is changed
FROM:

… Since FRBR_OO borrows structures from the CIDOC CRM to express the concepts declared in FRBR_ER, ‘temporal entities’ had inevitably to be introduced into FRBR_OO. Besides, some FRBR commentators had already made the point that time issues are insufficiently addressed in FRBR_ER¹⁷; the task of harmonising FRBR with the CIDOC CRM was an opportunity to fix that. Temporal entities were introduced into FRBR_OO by declaring some of the classes of FRBR_OO as subclasses of the following classes from CIDOC CRM: E65 Creation, E12 Production, and E13 Attribute Assignment.

Figure 1 show how the classes F27 Work Conception and F28 Expression Creation serve to link an E39 Actor, a E52 Time and a E53 Place to the F1 Work, F2 Expression and F4 Manifestation Singleton that are created by those processes. In the lower part of the figure the work elaboration process is shown along a time axis. First, the activity F27 Work Conception produces an idea, then the F28 Expression Creation activity produces simultaneously an F2 Expression and its first manifestation (in the form of a F4 Manifestation Singleton), which together realise a work (F1).
TO:

… Since FRBR_OO borrows structures from the CIDOC CRM to express the concepts declared in FRBR_ER, “temporal entities” had inevitably to be introduced into FRBR_OO. Besides, some FRBR commentators had already made the point that time issues are insufficiently addressed in FRBR_ER;¹⁸ the task of harmonising FRBR with the CIDOC CRM was an opportunity to fix that. Temporal entities were introduced into FRBR_OO by declaring some of the classes of FRBR_OO as subclasses of the following classes from CIDOC CRM: E65 Creation, E12 Production, E7 Activity, and E13 Attribute Assignment.

Figure 1 shows how the classes F27 Work Conception and F28 Expression Creation serve to link an E39 Actor, an E52 Time-Span and an E53 Place to the F1 Work, F2 Expression and F4 Manifestation Singleton that are created by those processes. In the lower part of the figure the work elaboration process is shown along a time axis. First, the activity F27 Work Conception produces an idea, then the F28 Expression Creation activity produces simultaneously an F2 Expression and its first manifestation (in the form of a F4 Manifestation Singleton), which together realise a work (F1).

1.2.2. Refinement of Group 1 Entities

In the second paragraph, in the middle and in the last paragraphs, the text is changed
FROM:

. Just like any product of the human mind, a Work necessarily begins to exist in the material world at a given point in time (even if it is a recollection of a Platonic form); this is the reason why FRBR_OO introduces the notion of F27 Work Conception. It makes the meaning of the FRBR_ER attribute ‘4.2.3 date of Work’ explicit.

………………………………….

While it can be said that a typical bibliographic record created by a national bibliographic agency describes, in FRBR_ER, an instance of the Manifestation entity, this is no longer true in FRBR_OO. Actually, what a typical bibliographic record covers depends on the nature of the thing described, and, to a lesser degree, on the cataloguing policy that was followed when creating it.

…………………………………………………..

In the case of serials, since the scope note for F18 Serial Work indicates that “there is in general no single expression or manifestation representing a complete serial work, unless the serial work is ended,” what the bibliographic record describes is actually an instance of the F18 Serial Work itself. Information elements that, in the FRBR_ER conceptualisation, were attached to the Expression and Manifestation entities, are actually part of the instance of E29 Design or Procedure that serves as an issuing rule for the serial work. It belongs to the very definition of the instance of F18 Serial Work that it consists of issues published by a given publisher and containing texts in a given language. However, those information elements may change over time while the serial work retains its identity; in that case, the instance of F18 Serial Work has several distinct issuing rules over time. This is what is meant when a single bibliographic record shows that at a given date, the publisher and/or place of publication have changed.

TO:

. Just like any product of the human mind, a Work necessarily begins to exist in the material world at a given point in time; this is the reason why FRBR_OO introduces the notion of F27 Work Conception. It makes the meaning of the FRBR_ER attribute ‘4.2.3 date of Work’ explicit.

……………………………………………………………………………

While it can be said that the attributes in FRBR_ER still reflect to a certain degree traditional cataloguing policy, this is no longer true in FRBR_OO. Actually, what a bibliographic record should cover, following the intentions of FRBR, depends on the nature of the thing described, and, to a lesser degree, on the cataloguing policy that was followed when creating it. Interpreting FRBR, FRBR_OO strictly associates attributes (or “properties”) with the entity of the bibliographic discourse they actually belong to. Only this form allows for the explanation and reconciliation of the various application dependent simplifications a particular implementation might choose. Some prominent cases are:

In the case of serials, since the scope note for F18 Serial Work indicates that “there is in general no single Expression or Manifestation representing a complete serial work, unless the serial work has ended,” what the bibliographic record describes is actually an instance of the F18 Serial Work itself. Information elements that, in the FRBR_ER conceptualisation, were directly attached to the Expression and Manifestation entities, are in FRBRoo seen as being in reality part of the issuing rule for the serial work (represented as an instance of E29 Design or Procedure). It is at the very core of the definition of F18 Serial Work that it plans that issues are published by a particular publisher and contain texts in a particular form. However, those information elements may change over time while the serial work retains its identity; in that case, the instance of F18 Serial Work has several distinct issuing rules over time, a case not modelled in FRBR_ER. This is what is meant when a single bibliographic record shows that at a given date, the publisher and/or place of publication have changed.

1.3. Differences in the FRBR Family between FRAD/FRSAD and FRBROO

The following text has been added to this section.
The FRAD model puts its emphasis on the separation between the bibliographic entities themselves (person, family, corporate body, work), their names as found in the non-bibliographic universe and the controlled access points constructed to represent the instances of the entities in bibliographic contexts through the use of rules as applied by bibliographic agencies.

In FRBROO the mechanism that underlies these relationships is made explicit by the introduction of classes and properties that capture the link between instances of persons, etc. and the names they use when performing different activities over time. Any activity in which one can see the use of a name in a given context is an F52 Name Use Activity. In the library domain, the F35 Nomen Use Statement records an appellation used within a KOS, including specific identifiers that provide controlled access points, which are generally recorded in authority records. Name authority files, subject headings files, classification systems are all typical library examples that are modelled as F34 KOS.

Taking as an example a Library of Congress name authority record for a corporate body (selected fields shown below), the information recorded in MARC21 field 670 is modelled by means of an F52 Name Use Activity. It indicates that in the book whose title is Lo Scavo di S. Giovanni di Ruoti ed il periodo tradonantico in Basilicata [This example is problematic – see ‘Issues’] published in 1983, the name of the centre is given in Italian on the title page (Centro accademico canadese in Italia) and in English on page 6 (Canadian Academic Centre in Italy). Thus this one book exemplifies two distinct F52 Name Use Activities which associate (R63 named) two different E41 Appellations (R64 used name) with the same instance of F11 Corporate body by means of two F35 Nomen Use Statements. These statements, created using the appropriate cataloguing rules, record the assignment of the identifiers Canadian Academic Centre in Italy (as the preferred form, MARC 21 field 110) and Centro accademico canadese in Italia (as a variant form, MARC 21 field 410) as controlled identifiers for this centre. These controlled access points (F35 Nomen Use Statements within the authority record) are R32 warranted by the F52 Name Use Activity which took place in the 1983 book.
010 __ |a n 85118480

110 2_ |a Canadian Academic Centre in Italy

410 2_ |a Centro accademico canadese in Italia

670 __ |a Lo Scavo di S. Giovanni di Ruoti ed il eriod tradonantico in Basilicata, 1983: |b t.p. (Centro accademico canadese in Italia) p. 6 (Canadian Academic Centre in Italy)

The FRBROO model clarifies that multiple bibliographic identities (such as pseudonyms coexisting with real names in different publications) are to be understood as instances of multiple name use by a single F10 Person in different contexts. This permits a new interpretation of the FRAD Person (An individual or a persona or identity established or adopted by an individual or group) as different F52 Name Use Activities of the same person taking place in specific contexts (R61). This insight is simpler than defining personas as classes within the model, as well as being considerably more flexible. The same modelling technique subsumes the apparently different situations of multiple pseudonyms used in different contexts thereby creating multiple bibliographic identities and variant forms of names used simultaneously. The cardinality of the relationships between instances of F10 Person and the names that persons use can be one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many (allowing for joint pseudonyms).

Similarly, in FRSAD the basic model indicates that thema is distinct from the nomens used to represent it. In FRBROO this is modelled in the same way: F52 Name Use Activity links the statements found in reference sources that attest to the use of a particular name for a particular concept (each of these statements being an instance of F35 Nomen Use Statement in the context of a particular KOS.

In a typical Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) authority record (selected fields shown below), the Thema, as represented by the record number (sh 8507420 in MARC 21 field 010), is associated with the nomen Lamniformes (an F35 Nomen Use Statement). An instance of F52 Name Use Activity is recorded on page 51 of the book Fishes of the world by J.S. Nelson published in 1994 that confirms the use of this term for this thema.

A broader term relationship is stated within LCSH (an instance of a F34 KOS) between this thema and two other thema, this is encoded in the MARC 21 550 fields (code value g in subfield w indicates broader term). This same authority record shows the use of MARC 21 field 053 to encode the assignment of the nomen QL638.94.L36 to this thema, this time within the Library of Congress Classification (LCC).

010 __ |a sh 85074230

053 _0 |a QL638.94.L36 |c Zoology

150 __ |a Lamniformes

550 __ |w g |a Chondrichthyes

550 __ |w g |a Sharks

670 __ |a Nelson, J.S. Fishes of the world, 1994: |b p. 51 (Order Lamniformes (mackerel sharks). Seven families with 10 genera and 16 species)

2.1 Graphic Overview of the Object-Oriented Definition of FRBR

This section has been separated in subsections following the figures. Also the Appendix 5 has been moved to 2.1.6 subsection of 2.1. In the first subsection, in the first paragraph as well as in the second part of the n^th the following changes have been made:

FROM :
Figure 6 shows the relations that exist between “works” and “expressions” and the subclasses of both concepts, independently from any dynamic aspects involving the activities of creation and modification. It shows an analysis of the original FRBR_ER concepts Work and Expression into the more detailed ones that appear only indirectly in FRBR_ER via attributes that are specific to these detailed concepts rather than to Work and Expression in general. The reader may find the actual relation of these concepts to the FRBR_ER attributes in section 5.3 below.

In detail:

…………………………………………………….

…………………………………..

n. The notion of “work” is actually a vague one, which covers three more specific notions:

• 
  ……..
  
• 
  The concept of re-using some already existing material or of using some event (either natural or involving human activity) in order to produce some new creation. This is modelled as: F16 Container Work is a F1 Work, F1 Work R3 is realised in (realises) F22 Self-Contained Expression, and (unless a natural event is being used) F22 Self-Contained Expression R14 incorporates (is incorporated in) F2 Expression.
  

……………………….

Figure 10 lingers on the way FRBR_OO models live performing arts. In contrast to the other figures, it makes use of a concrete example. It demonstrate how successive intellectual processes incorporate Expressions from previous ones, add new elements of different natures, and thereby “add value” to the previous steps. In this sense, the performance adds movement and sound to a text, the recording adds points of view or ways of seeing. In a detailed example:

………………………..

TO:

2.1.1. Static View of the Work and Expression Classes

Figure 6 shows the relations that exist between works and expressions and the subclasses of both concepts, independently from any dynamic aspects involving the activities of creation and modification. It shows an analysis of the original FRBR_ER concepts Work and Expression into the more detailed ones that appear only indirectly in FRBR_ER via attributes that are specific to these detailed concepts rather than to Work and Expression in general. The reader may find the actual relation of these concepts to the FRBR_ER attributes in section 3.3 below.

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Comments on Figure 6:

……………………………………………………………..

n. The notion of “work” is actually a vague one, which covers three more specific notions:

• 
  …………….
  
• 
  The concept of re-using some already existing material in order to produce some new creation. This is modelled as: F16 Container Work is a F1 Work, F1 Work R3 is realised in (realises) F22 Self-Contained Expression, and F22 Self-Contained Expression R14 incorporates (is incorporated in) F2 Expression.
  

…

2.1.2 Dynamic View of the Work and Expression Classes

….

2.1.3 Dynamic View of the Manifestation and Item Classes

Comments on Figure 8:

……………

2.1.4 Static View of the Manifestation and Item Classes

Comments on Figure 9:

……………………

2.1.5. Performing Arts as an Example for the Incorporation of Expressions in Expressions of Other Works

Figure 10 illustrates the way FRBR_OO models live performing arts. In contrast to the other figures, it makes use of a concrete example. It demonstrates how successive intellectual processes incorporate Expressions from previous ones, add new elements of different natures, and thereby “add value” to the previous steps. In this sense, the performance adds movement and sound to a text, the recording adds points of view or ways of seeing.

………..

Figure
Comments on Figure 10:

Shakespeare’s Henry IV is a play in 2 parts: each part is a self-contained play in its own right, but form nevertheless parts of a larger overall F15 Complex Work.

2.1.6. Creation and Assignment of Controlled Access Points

During the cataloguing process, one important phase is the creation of what are termed controlled access points (formerly known as “headings”). Controlled access points enable a given instance of a given bibliographic entity to be consistently referred to in a given bibliographic database. Controlled access points are, in general, composed of parts, which consist of signs, and some of which are appellations in their own right. They are created to identify persons, corporate bodies, geographic areas, works, etc.

Specific sections of cataloguing rules specify the steps that have to be followed when creating a controlled access point and how to ensure its uniqueness. The steps include the choice of the preferred form of the name, the choice of qualifiers, their form, punctuation and order. During an F40 Identifier Assignment the cataloguer composes the identifier and makes informed decisions. That complex process is modelled using three distinct classes: F12 Nomen, F13 Identifier, and F50 Controlled Access Point. F13 Identifier corresponds to both standardised strings such as uniform titles (which are instances of F50 Controlled Access Point), and the notion of numeric identifiers such as international standard numbers defined in ISO standards (such as ISBN, ISSN, ISRC, etc.). Any qualifier used in cataloguing practice to disambiguate access points is an instance of E90 Symbolic Object (or, in many cases, of its subclass E41 Appellation; e.g., dates are appellations of instances of E52 Time-Span).

Figure 11 is a representation of such an activity.

Figure

The model described in Figure 11 is relevant beyond library practice. It allows for the implementation of the reasoning processes involved in analysing the information encoded in the parts of an identifier. Therefore the CIDOC CRM has incorporated this model.

The process of creating controlled access points that are as specific, accurate, and “unique” as possible is particularly interesting when applied to instances of Work and Expression, as they lack a material nature. Figure 12 shows how the instance of an F2 Expression common to some instances of F3 Manifestation Product Type or F4 Manifestation Singleton would be identified with the one manifestation of a particular expression that has been selected to be “representative” for this expression. This model does not correspond to any explicit library information. Rather, it describes an implicit process behind the appellation creation process: The very fact of composing an identifier for an instance of F2 Expression using the identifier of one particular manifestation makes the latter “representative” for the corresponding expression. Note that the “representative” manifestation is not necessarily the historically first or earliest one. It might be the most popular one, or the first one detected. It might be a fragment of a whole detected later. As this introduces a kind of arbitrariness, the authors found this model interesting when discussing the respective practices. Similarly, an instance of F1 Work can only be identified if a corresponding instance of F2 Expression is selected as “representative”.

Figure

2.4. Presentation Conventions

Between the first and the second paragraph a paragraph is inserted. The following text is changed

FROM:

All instances of E41 Appellation are presented within single quotation marks, whether they are used for themselves or just to refer to the things they name. Any punctuation mark that follows an instance of E41 Appellation is placed outside the single quotation marks, as it does not belong to the appellation itself.

……….
TO:

All instances of E41 Appellation are presented within single quotation marks, whether they are used for themselves or just to refer to the things they name. Any punctuation mark that follows an instance of E41 Appellation is placed outside the single quotation marks, as it does not belong to the appellation itself.

Furthermore, all references to instances of E90 Symbolic Object in the form of a content model are presented within single quotation marks, such as ‘abc’. By content model we mean the symbol sequence the symbolic object consists of.

…………

Proofreading

First page: Pat Riva is added to the editors list. Also the contributors list was re arranged.

Page 11: minor grammatical changes are made to the section 1.1.4 An opportunity for mutual enrichment for FRBR and CIDOC CRM

FROM:

The CIDOC CRM model is influenced by the process of FRBR’s re-formulation as well. Modelling bibliographic information highlights some issues that may have been overlooked during the development of CIDOC CRM, and the way such issues were addressed in FRBR_OO resulted in some cases in making changes in the CIDOC CRM model. These changes are so significant that an anticipated revision of the ISO standard 21127 was required.

TO:

The CIDOC CRM model is influenced by the process of FRBR’s re-formulation as well. Modelling bibliographic information highlights some issues that may have been overlooked during the development of CIDOC CRM, and the way such issues are addressed in FRBR_OO resulted in some cases in making changes in the CIDOC CRM model. These changes are so significant that a revision of the ISO standard 21127 was required.

Page 12: editorial updates are made to 1.1.6 Sources
FROM
…..:

IFLA Study Group on the functional requirements for bibliographic records. Functional requirements for bibliographic records: final report [printed text]. Munich, Germany: K. G. Saur, 1998. Also available online from World Wide Web: .

……….

ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group; & CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group. Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model: version 5.0.4, November 2011 [electronic resource]. [Heraklion, Greece]: [ICS-FORTH], 2011. Available online at: , or: .

The FRBR model was complemented over years with two additional models: FRAD (“Functional Requirements for Authority Data”), and FRSAR (“Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data”). The documents that contain a definition for those two models were also used during the process of elaborating the definition of the FRBR_OO model:

IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR). Functional requirements for authority data: a conceptual model. Munich, Germany: K. G. Saur, 2009.

IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR). Functional requirements for subject authority data (FRSAD): a conceptual model. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2011. Also available online: .

TO:

……..:

IFLA Study Group on the functional requirements for bibliographic records. Functional requirements for bibliographic records: final report. Munich, Germany: K. G. Saur, 1998. Also available online from World Wide Web: .

……:

ICOM/CIDOC Documentation Standards Group; CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group. Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model: version 5.1, May 2012. [Heraklion, Greece]: [ICS-FORTH], 2012. Available online at: , or: .

In the preparation of version 2.0 of FRBR_OO the final approved statements of the FRAD and FRSAD models were used.

IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR); Glenn E. Patton, ed., Functional requirements for authority data: a conceptual model. München: K.G. Saur, 2009.

IFLA Working Group on the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR); Marcia Lei Zeng, Maja Žumer and Athena Salaba, ed., Functional requirements for subject authority data (FRSAD): a conceptual model. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2011. Also available online from World Wide Web: .

Page 29: Minor editorial changes are made.

Page 31-40: the listed tables are updated

Page 41: The following notation is added:

• 
  The line “Equal to:” declares the CIDOC CRM class that covers the same concept as the FRBR_OO class;