The brooch, the bug and the book:

a comparison of the activity of “description” in fine arts museums, natural history museums, and libraries;

together with a mapping from FRBR to CRM

Whether in a fine arts museum, a natural history museum, or a library, the primary task is to describe a physical piece of the world: a Viking brooch, a specimen of a bug, a printed (or handwritten) book. But these physical pieces of the world also are the carriers of more abstract “stuff”, which it is equally important to describe: if you do not take into account the intellectual input of a book, the book itself is a mere conglomerate of ink and paper (in some cases, you may also have to take into account the artistic/historical aspects of binding, printing, etc., turning the physical book into a museum object); and the Viking brooch shows an iconographical motif and a given “design or procedure”.

Besides, a physical item may be either “unique”, or regarded as representative for a set or class of other physical items that show a number of similar features (as to a given range of functions): the bug is interesting only inasmuch as it is representative for the species it belongs to, the printed book is representative for all the other books that were created in the course of the very same production process, and can share with all of them (or is supposed to) a number of descriptive statements. In such cases, description may be shared between different institutions.

I would argue, though it may sound rather surprising, that the very activity of “description” in libraries is closer to what it is in natural history museums than to what it is in fine arts museums (except for some kinds of specialized libraries, and with libraries with manuscript collections). In a National Bibliographic Agency, catalogers describe a physical book for the first time and define it as the “prototype” for the “taxon” it belongs to; they infer from the description of this “prototype” that the description of all other “specimens” belonging to the same “taxon” will have the same description, and they put that description into a National Bibliography. Then, catalogers in other libraries will compare other “specimens” of physical books they suppose belong to the same “taxon” with the description of the “prototype” provided by the National Bibliographic Agency, decide whether these physical books actually belong to that same “taxon” or not, on the basis of such a comparison or on the basis of a mere comparison on identifiers such as ISBN, borrow that “prototypical” description from the National Bibliography, and add to it some specific features pertaining to the “specimen” they hold in their collections.

We may therefore assert that in all three kinds of institutions there are three levels of description: a physical object, the characteristics it may share with other physical objects belonging to a same “set” that is defined on the basis of some functions, the content it shows. Which could be schematized as follows:

The same figure, with CRM and FRBR terminology:

For each physical item, fundamental questions are therefore: is it “unique” or does it belong to a “set”? does it show an abstract “content” or is it described “per se” (a stone, for instance)? The answer to such questions will determine the application of such or such describing (“cataloging”) rules, rather than the fact that the item is being described in such or such type of institution.

A FRBR/CRM mapping might provide a unified field of reference for describing any kind of material, in whatever type of institution they are held. The same model would then be relevant for describing the brooch, the bug and the book.

20/58

mapping FRBR à CRM

Foreword to the 1st “edition” (before the Monterey meeting, February 2002):

The FRBR model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) was approved in 1997 by the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Cataloguing (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) and published in 1998.

Its aim was at the same time to demonstrate, on scientific bases, that full cataloguing, such as it has traditionally been in use in libraries, is justified and even necessary, and to convey some more experimental (not to say revolutionary) views on data structure: “the model could also be expanded in depth to create a fully developed data model that would serve as the basis for the design of an experimental database to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of a database structure patterned on the model” (FRBR final study, p. 6).

As its very name suggests, the FRBR model is designed for bibliographic records only, whereas libraries traditionally produce two kinds of records: bibliographic records for the description of the items they actually hold or give access to, and authority records for a better control of the access points to these bibliographic records (names of persons, names of corporate bodies, subject headings, in some cases titles of works, etc.). The FRANAR group (Functional Requirements And Numbering of Authority Records) within IFLA has as task to extend the modeling process to authority records. Tom Delsey has prepared a document for discussion within the FRANAR group; this working draft contains substantial enhancements to FRBR, since in the original version of FRBR authority records are taken into consideration only inasmuch as they are directly related to bibliographic records, and these enhancements might easily be mapped to CRM (for instance, “Place of Birth” and “Place of Death” for the Person entity). However, I only mapped FRBR in the form in which it currently stands and is available: I’ll wait until Tom Delsey’s proposals are approved by the FRANAR group and officially published before I map them to CRM.

Lately (on 2002 January 4th to be specific), Tom Delsey (again) proposed an extension of FRBR, in order “to reflect the data content of the MARC bibliographic and holding formats” and to clarify “the extent of the information contained in MARC records and the interrelationships between and among elements of that information.” Though this extension has been made available to anyone (<http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/appendixdpdf>), I didn’t take it into account either, but it surely will be most useful in the future to map this extended version of FRBR to CRM.

One of the major problems I had to struggle with while working on this mapping, was how precisely to map the manifestation entity. I first proposed either E24 Physical man-made stuff or E22 Man-made object, but as a result of some discussion with Martin, perhaps E73 Information object (with due type, in order to make a clear distinction between expression and manifestation) would be more convenient; but then there would be some problems again with such attributes of the manifestation entity as “form of carrier”, “extent of the carrier”, “physical medium”, “dimensions of the carrier”, etc.

Another problem was the lack of an equivalent for the concept entity — or should it be a type in CRM?

There is no equivalent either for the notion of “edition / issue designation”, which is crucial for bibliographic items. This designation might be interpreted as the identification of a state of an information object between two changes — but in most cases this state is still available even after the change has occurred.

A number of other, less important difficulties have been highlighted hereafter in yellow.

All of these problems, major or minor, deserve some discussion, in order to achieve an acceptable mapping of FRBR to CRM.

Foreword to the 2nd version (July 2002):

This mapping was revised on the basis of comments from the CRM-SIG on the occasion of its Monterey meeting in February 2002. These comments led to a change in the mapping of some fundamental entities in the FRBR model, resulting thus in radical changes in parts of the rest of the mapping.

Besides, instead of dividing this mapping into three chapters, “Entities”, “Attributes”, “Relationships”, as formerly, I regarded both “attributes” and “relationships” as “properties”, following the CRM terminology. The difference, in the FRBR model, between “attributes” and “relationships”, is that an attribute is a property that, in bibliographic databases, always is expressed through a mere statement in the record, a string (which matches in CRM the “has note: E62 String” property), whereas relationships should always correspond to actual links from records (typically, bibliographic) to distinct records (typically, those found in authority files). (This is the reason why FRBR regards “4.4.4. Place of Publication/Distribution” as an attribute, though the Place entity does exist in the model but corresponds to an authority record that is used only for a subject relationship).

I did not use the mapping utility developed by ICS-FORTH, because my computer did not support it. It remains therefore a mere Word document. I hope however it will be possible in a near future (once it has been accepted by the CRM-SIG) to transform it into a more convenient format, which will allow it to be exploited.

Changes between the previous version and this one are highlighted in grey.

Problems and unanswered questions are highlighted in yellow.

20/58

Mapping FRBR_to_CRM

Entities (and Groups of Entities):

Source: FRBR / CRM /
3.1.1. Group 1 (Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item) / E71 Man-made Stuff
3.1.2. Group 2 (Person, Corporate Body) / E39 Actor
3.1.3. Group 3 (Group 1, Group 2, Concept, Object, Event, Place) / E1 CRM Entity
3.2.1. Work / E73 Information Object P2 has type E55 Type (with value: “Work”)
3.2.2. Expression / E73 Information Object P2 has type E55 Type (with value: “Expression”)
(In the case of texts, may be specialized into: E33 Linguistic object)
(In the case of images, may be specialized into: E38 Image)
3.2.3. Manifestation / E73 Information object P2 has type E55 Type (with value: “Manifestation”)
E55 Type
3.2.4. Item / E23 Information Carrier
3.2.5. Person / E21 Person
3.2.6. Corporate Body / E74 Group
In some cases: E40 Legal body
Note: the FRBR entity “Corporate Body” also involves “meetings, conferences, congresses, expeditions, exhibitions, festivals, fairs, etc.” and “organizations that act as territorial authorities […] such as a federation, a state, a region, a local municipality, etc.”
3.2.7. Concept / E28 Conceptual Object
3.2.8. Object / E19 Physical Object
3.2.9. Event / E5 Event
3.2.10. Place / E53 Place

Properties:

Source: FRBR / CRM
Domain / 3.2.1. Work / E73 Information object (has type: “Work”)
Link / has attribute: 4.2.1. Title of the Work / P102 has title (is title of)
Range / 4.2.1. Title of the Work / E35 Title
Conditions
Source: FRBR / CRM
Domain / 3.2.1. Work / E73 Information object (has type: “Work”)
Link / has attribute: 4.2.2. Form of Work / P2 has type (is type of) E55 Type
Range / 4.2.2. Form of Work / E55 Type
Conditions / with definition of a subset “Form of Work” within E55 Type
Source: FRBR / CRM
Domain / 3.2.1. Work / E73 Information object (has type: “Work”)
Link / has attribute: 4.2.3. Date of the Work / P94backwards was created by (has created) E65 Creation Event
E65 Creation Event P4 has time-span (is time-span of) E52 Time-span
E52 Time-span P78 is identified by (identifies) E50 Date
Range / 4.2.3. Date of the Work / E50 Date
Conditions
Source: FRBR / CRM
Domain / 3.2.1. Work / E73 Information object (has type: “Work”)
Link / has attribute: 4.2.4. Other Distinguishing Characteristic / P102 has title (is title of) E35 Title
E35 Title P106 is composed of (forms part of) E33 Linguistic Object
E33 Linguistic Object P2 has type (is type of) E55 Type (value: “Other Distinguishing Characteristic”)
Range / 4.2.4. Other Distinguishing Characteristic / E33 Linguistic Object
Conditions / Actually is a part of E35 Title, not as a “natural title” but as an additional information provided by catalogers in order to distinguish between two homonymous titles.
Source: FRBR / CRM
Domain / 3.2.1. Work / E73 Information object (has type: “Work”)
Link / has attribute: 4.2.5. Intended Termination / P2 has type (is type of) E55 Type
Range / 4.2.5. Intended Termination / E55 Type
Conditions / with definition of a subset “Intended Termination” within E55 Type
Source: FRBR / CRM
Domain / 3.2.1. Work / E73 Information object (has type: “Work”)
Link / has attribute: 4.2.6. Intended Audience / P103 was intended for (was intention of) E55 Type
Range / 4.2.6. Intended Audience / E55 Type
Conditions / with definition of a subset “Intended Audience” within E55 Type
Source: FRBR / CRM
Domain / 3.2.1. Work / E73 Information object (has type: “Work”)
Link / has attribute: 4.2.7. Context for the Work / P94backwards was created by (has created) E65 Creation Event
E65 Creation Event P10 falls within (contains) E4 Period
Range / 4.2.7. Context for the Work / E4 Period
Conditions
Source: FRBR / CRM
Domain / 3.2.1. Work / E73 Information object (has type: “Work”) (has type: “Musical Work”)
Link / has attribute: 4.2.8. Medium of Performance (Musical Work) / P103 was intended for (was intention of) E55 Type
Range / 4.2.8. Medium of Performance (Musical Work) / E55 Type
Conditions / with definition of a subset “Medium of Performance” within E55 Type
Source: FRBR / CRM
Domain / 3.2.1. Work / E73 Information object (has type: “Work”) (has type: “Musical Work”)