3 thoughts on “GBS FRBR”

  1. Lorcan,
    My understanding of Clancy’s description was that they are doing “de-duping” not FRBR. Of course, there wasn’t time to get into what they mean by “the same book” but it would be interesting to continue that conversation. I can imagine a calculation of sameness based on the digital version that would bring together instances of the same text, whether actual duplicates (because Google will be scanning the same book more than once) or ones we would consider reprints. This is probably fairly close to what a user would consider to be “same,” and which I think would be the same Expression in FRBR. It would be interesting to consider “FRBR-izing” at this level as well, not just the work level.

  2. Karen, what I say is that they are pulling together members of work-sets. This is different from ‘de-duping’ at the manifesation-level, which is where we have usually thought about it. Maybe you could say that what I was talking about was where they are trying to de-dupe at the work level? Of course, they are interested in de-deduping at all levels.
    I think that it is useful to think about this in terms of managing similarity and difference. Sometimes you are interested in any version of Huck Finn. Sometimes you are interested in a particular version. To meet that requirement you need to manage similarity (what are the members of the work) and difference (what is sufficiently distinct to merit individual attention).
    In fact, based on the above, I should generalize to say that you are interested in managing similarity and difference at the item, manifestation and work levels (putting expressions to one side).
    The extent to which you do this is really a service choice, based on available evidence and your decision about what you are prepared to accept as equivalent for your purposes.
    You are right about the interesting potential for machine inspection: they have more evidence on which to base decisions. In fact, Google can now make item-level distinctions (where an item carries annotations in the margin, for example). Or find small differences within manifestations (e.g. spelling corrections). And so on.
    I confess that I tend to use ‘frbrize’ loosely to refer to something which tries to give both a work-based and a manifestation-based view. Of course, in the absence of any real specifications which encapsulate aggreeed implementation of the model, FRBR remains a vague – but useful – concept.

  3. The FRBR Model doesn’t actually go into too much detail about specifying exactly where work boundaries occur. When two exprsesions/manifestations are the same work, and when they aren’t.
    It actually says this is subjective and context specific. I think this is just right—it’s the job of particular communities or implementor’s using the FRBR Model to make these decisions and/or create specifications/rules for their community. Perhaps certain ‘best practices’ will come out of people actually implementing FRBR Modelled data systems.
    But I think it is both intentional and indeed the right decision that the FRBR Model doesn’t go into detail about when ‘things’ are part of the same work and when they aren’t. The FRBR Model defines that these entities like Work, Exprssion, Manifestation exist, and defines the attributes and relationships that they have. How to actually capture ‘the real world’ in this model is an implementatino decision which is subjective, context-dependent, and likely community-specific. If a community (like ‘the AACR2/RDA using community’, such as it is) feels it needs strict guidelines for such—then they must be created. Logically, in RDA.

Comments are closed.