Definition of Object-Oriented frbr

6.5 Amendments to Version 2.0 (22nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM)

In the introduction Pat Riva has been added to the international group.

The International Working Group on FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation, chaired by Martin Doerr (ICS FORTH, Greece), Patrick Le Bœuf (BnF, France), and Pat Riva (BAnQ, Canada),

6.6 Amendments to Version 2.0 (23rd FRBR – CIDOC CRM)

Modifications were made in the following portions of text:

1.1.6. Sources: URLs were updated.

1.2.1. Introduction of temporal entities…, footnote 7: URLs were checked, and updated where needed.

1.2.2. Refinement of Group 1 entities: Paragraph devoted to F27 Work Conception rephrased.

1.2.3. Analysis of creation and production processes: the notion of F53 Material Copy was introduced. Figure 5 is still to be updated.

2.1.2. Dynamic view of the Work and Expression classes: text devoted to F27 work Conception rephrased.

2.1.7. Photographs and animated images: this Section was introduced.

2.3. Property quantifiers: quantification conventions were harmonized with CIDOC CRM.

2.5.1., 2.5.2. FRBRoo class hierarchy: F53 and F54 were introduced (+ E25 Man-Made Feature, as superclass of F53).

2.5.3., 2.5.4. FRBRoo property hierarchy: R65 was introduced.

2.6.:

F5 Item: “Subclass of” and “Properties” modified.

F21 Recording Work: “Scope note” and “Examples” modified.

F26 Recording: “Examples” modified.

F27 Work Conception: “Scope note” and “Examples” modified.

F28 Expression Creation: “Scope note” and “Examples” modified.

F29 Recording Event: “Examples” modified, R65 property added.

F32 Carrier Production Event: “Scope note” modified, range of R28 preoperty modified.

F52 Name Use Activity: “Scope note” and “Examples” modified.

F53 Material Copy introduced.

F54 Utilized Information Carrier introduced.

2.7.:

Introduction: bullet 7 modified, bullet 12 introduced.

All properties: quantification conventions harmonized with CIDOC CRM.

R3: “Scope note” and “Examples” modified, R3.1 introduced.

R6: “Domain” modified.

R13: further “Examples” added.

R14: “Range”, “Scope note” and “Examples”m odified.

R16: “Scope note” and “Examples” modified.

R21: further “Examples” added.

R22: further “Examples” added.

R28: “Range” and “Scope note” modified.

R34: “Subproperty of” modified.

R56: “Examples” modified.

R57: “Examples” is still to be modified.

R59: “Subproperty of” modified.

R60: “Subproperty of” still needs “theoretical investigation”.

R61: “Subproperty of” still to be drafted.

R62: “Subproperty of” modified (proposal to be checked).

R65 introduced.

4.3.:

E25 Man-Made Feature introduced (as superclass of F53 Material Copy).
+ Minor editorial amendments (typos, spelling…).

6.7 Amendments to Version 2.1 (3/02/2015)

FRBR_OO version 2.1: changes made (other than merely editorial cleaning)

Throughout the document:

All references to CIDOC CRM version 5.1 replaced with references to CIDOC CRM version 6.0.

All occurrences of “R14 incorporates…” replaced with “P165 incorporates…”

All reverse properties denoted by an “i” following the property’s code, instead of a “B”.

1. Introduction:

P. 10, 5^th paragraph: date of formation of the WG added.

P. 10, footnote 5: a statement about the publication of revised ISO standard in 2014 added.

P. 12, 1.1.6. Sources: URLs of CIDOC CRM version 5.1 replaced with URLs of CIDOC CRM version 6.0.

P. 19, 5^th paragraph: Question: Shouldn’t this paragraph state precisely how this broader term relationship is modelled within FRBR_OO?
2. Description of the Model:

P. 19, last paragraph: a statement about the modelling of photographs and animated images added.

P.21, bracket “g”: The discussion about F15 Complex Work and R10 has member is still open. However, shouldn’t we add a footnote here, in order to indicate that people who wish to avoid the confusion between structural and alternative members of complex works can use P148 instead of R10? Unless we decide to close the discussion and solve the issue about F18 Serial Work.

P24, last line: “writer” generalized to “creator”.

P25, 1^st paragraph: Question: Shouldn’t the content of the parenthesis be transformed into a footnote?

P. 26, second to last paragraph: ISNI added among examples for ISO identifiers.

P. 29, 1^st paragraph: statement about codes for inverted properties added (Rni instead of RnB).

P. 38: R14 deleted.

P. 40: R66 added.

P. 41: R66 added.

P. 42: R66 added and R14 deleted.

P. 43: R14 deleted.

P. 46, F1 Work, Scope note: I didn’t make any change (except in last paragraph) as the discussion isn’t closed. I left Trond’s comments, and added two comments of mine. Last paragraph: I replaced “A Work may aggregate expressions” with “A Work may include the concept of aggregating expressions”, as the original phrasing was a bit ambiguous.

P. 47, F2 Expression, Examples: some Examples instantiated as both expressions and linguistic objects.

P. 54, F15 Complex Work, Scope note: I didn’t make any change as the discussion isn’t over. I left Trond’s comment such as it stands.

P. 58, F22 Self-Contained Expression, Properties: R14 deleted.

P. 66, F40 Identifier Assignment, Scope Note: I replaced “the allocation of an identifier to any E1 CRM Entity” with “the allocation of an identifier to an instance of any subclass of E1 CRM Entity”.

P. 78-79, R14 incorporates: text deleted, and replaced with “DEPRECATED PROPERTY. This property has been transferred to CIDOC CRM version 6.0 as P165.”

P. 86, R33 has content: I didn’t make any change, although it was decided on 2 October 2014 that R33 should be deleted and transferred to CIDOC CRM as property P166, because there still are issues to be solved about P166.

P. 101, R65 recorded aspects of: some issues still have to be solved. The declared range is inconsistent with the second “Shortcut of”.

P. 101, R66 included performed version of: the declaration of this property was added, as it was agreed upon on 30 September 2014. Two examples were created.

P. 200: P165 incorporates: the text from CIDOC CRM version 6.0 was… incorporated. Examples are missing.

1^ “FRBR” stands for: “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records,” after the name of the IFLA Study Group that developed the model. However, current use and understanding of the FRBR model go well beyond that, and the term “FRBR” has now turned into a noun in its own right, used without particular intention to refer to “functionalities,” nor to “requirements,” but rather to the semantics of bibliographic records. The Final Report on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records published in 1998 contained both a study on functional requirements for bibliographic records, and a description of the model known today as “FRBR.”

2^ In addition to FRBR itself, the FRBR family of conceptual models includes the Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), published in 2009, and the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), published in 2011.

3^ Coleman, Anita S. 2002. Scientific models as works. Cataloging & classification quarterly 33n3/4: 129-59.

4^ “CIDOC CRM” stands for “Comité international de documentation [= International Committee on Documentation] Conceptual Reference Model,” which, when isolated from any context, is not particularly meaningful (CIDOC is affiliated to ICOM, the International Council of Museums). Just like FRBR, the acronym, rather meaningless in itself, has now turned into a noun in its own right.

5^ Information and documentation – a reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information. ISO 21127:2006. Geneva: ISO, 2006. Revised version: 2014.

6^ Natural history museums also are witnesses of “cultural features.” A frog in a museum is not a testimony of “what a frog is,” but of what a human culture, at a given point in time and space, thinks a frog is.

7^ HEANEY, Michael. Time is of the essence: some thoughts occasioned by the papers contributed to the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR [on line]. Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1997 [cited 30 May 2014]. Available from Internet: .

LAGOZE, Carl. Business unusual: how “event-awareness” may breathe life into the catalog?. In: Conference on bibliographic control in the new millennium [on line]. Washington: Library of Congress, October 19, 2000 [cited 19 January 2008]. Available from Internet: .

FITCH, Kent. ALEG Data Model. Inventory [on line]. [Brisbane]: AustLit Gateway, revised 27 July 2000 [cited 26 March 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: .

DOERR, Martin; HUNTER, Jane; LAGOZE, Carl. Towards a core ontology for information integration. In: Journal of Digital Information [on line]. 2003-04-09, Vol. 4, No. 1 [cited 19 January 2008]. Available from Internet: .

8^ Tom Delsey and Beth Dulabahn participated in the Working Group’s first meeting in Paris in 2003.

9^ “FRBR” stands for: “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records,” after the name of the IFLA Study Group that developed the model. However, current use and understanding of the FRBR model go well beyond that, and the term “FRBR” has now turned to a noun in its own right, used without particular intention to refer to “functionalities,” nor to “requirements,” but rather to the semantics of bibliographic records. The Final Report on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records published in 1998 contained both a study on functional requirements for bibliographic records, and a description of the model known today as “FRBR.”

10^ Coleman, Anita S. 2002. Scientific models as works. Cataloging & classification quarterly 33n3/4: 129-59.

11^ “CIDOC CRM” stands for “Comité international de documentation [= International Committee on Documentation] Conceptual Reference Model,” which, when isolated from any context, is not particularly meaningful (CIDOC is affiliated to ICOM, the International Council of Museums). Just like FRBR, the acronym, rather meaningless by itself, has now turned to a noun in its own right.

12^ “FRBR” stands for: “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records,” after the name of the IFLA Study Group that developed the model. However, current use and understanding of the FRBR model go well beyond that, and the term “FRBR” has now turned to a noun in its own right, used without particular intention to refer to “functionalities,” nor to “requirements,” but rather to the semantics of bibliographic records. The Final Report on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records published in 1998 contained both a study on functional requirements for bibliographic records, and a description of the model known today as “FRBR.”

13^ In addition to FRBR itself, the FRBR family of conceptual models includes the Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), published in 2009, and the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), published in 2011.

14^ Coleman, Anita S. 2002. Scientific models as works. Cataloging & classification quarterly 33n3/4: 129-59.

15^ “CIDOC CRM” stands for “Comité international de documentation [= International Committee on Documentation] Conceptual Reference Model,” which, when isolated from any context, is not particularly meaningful (CIDOC is affiliated to ICOM, the International Council of Museums). Just like FRBR, the acronym, rather meaningless in itself, has now turned into a noun in its own right.

16^ Information and documentation – a reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information. ISO 21127:2006. Geneva: ISO, 2006.

17^ HEANEY, Michael. Time is of the essence: some thoughts occasioned by the papers contributed to the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR [on line]. Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1997 [cited 19 January 2008]. Available from World Wide Web: .

LAGOZE, Carl. Business unusual: how “event-awareness” may breathe life into the catalog?. In: Conference on bibliographic control in the new millennium [on line]. Washington: Library of Congress, October 19, 2000 [cited 19 January 2008]. Available from Internet: .

FITCH, Kent. ALEG Data Model. Inventory [on line]. [Brisbane]: AustLit Gateway, revised 27 July 2000 [cited 26 March 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: .

DOERR, Martin; HUNTER, Jane; LAGOZE, Carl. Towards a core ontology for information integration. In: Journal of Digital Information [on line]. 2003-04-09, Vol. 4, No. 1 [cited 19 January 2008]. Available from World Wide Web: .

18^ HEANEY, Michael. Time is of the essence: some thoughts occasioned by the papers contributed to the International Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR [on line]. Oxford: Bodleian Library, 1997 [cited 19 January 2008]. Available from World Wide Web: .

LAGOZE, Carl. Business unusual: how “event-awareness” may breathe life into the catalog?. In: Conference on bibliographic control in the new millennium [on line]. Washington: Library of Congress, October 19, 2000 [cited 19 January 2008]. Available from Internet: .

FITCH, Kent. ALEG Data Model. Inventory [on line]. [Brisbane]: AustLit Gateway, revised 27 July 2000 [cited 26 March 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: .

DOERR, Martin; HUNTER, Jane; LAGOZE, Carl. Towards a core ontology for information integration. In: Journal of Digital Information [on line]. 2003-04-09, Vol. 4, No. 1 [cited 19 January 2008]. Available from World Wide Web: .