797. Review of ISBD Review Group task force document on the use of multiple ISBDs: McGarry
McGarry moved that CC:DA form a task force to review issues related to the use of multiple ISBDs. Arakawa seconded the motion. The charge of the task force should be to look at the use of multiple ISBDs in area 4
and 5 for electronic maps and electronic serials.
There will be a two-month worldwide review period. This is not enough time for the task force to respond if
CC:DA does not form the task force in advance of the review period. Attig stated it is important that CC:DA participate and the task force should be formed in advance.
Patton stated the general issue is that within the families of ISBD there has never been anything like 0.24 and
0.25 in AACR for using multiple chapters when needed. This is part of what this set of provisions is designed
to do. It addresses combining ISBDs or parts of area 3 and 5,and in what order to do it: content followed by carrier, followed by form of issuance. He added that part of this proposal is catch up.
The motion was seconded and approved. Lindlan passed around a sign-up sheet for the task force.
798. Other new business, reports from the floor, announcement of next meeting, and adjournment
Paul Weiss, the ALA representative to NISO thanked CC:DA for being so responsive. He also thanked Attig for maintaining the best ALA website.
Lindlan reported she is still unclear about the role of CC:DA concerning the LC Bibliographic Control Action
Plan. She will pursue this and report back.
Lindlan stated that there would be two new members on the Committee, Matthew Wise and Jay Weitz. Lindlan will continue as Chair.
Attig moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Eden and passed.
Joint meeting with MARBI on FRBR and MARC 21
Lindlan began the joint CC:DA and MARBI meeting by passing around an attendance sheet. She introduced William Jones, the MARBI chair. Lindlan welcomed everyone to the joint meeting and announced that Sally McCallum, Tom Delsey and Glenn Patton would speak on different aspects of Fundamental Requirements of Bibliographic Records.
McCallum began her presentation by stating that MARBI was looking at FRBR from the MARC point of view. Tom Delsey had done a study for NDMSO where he took all the data elements in MARC and mapped them to FRBR for attributes. She stated that MARC has grown by need and so far AACR has been the basis of MARC. FRBR can be used as a guide for changes in MARC because it logically groups data elements. McCallum added that a piece of Delseys study was to look at FRBR displays. The paper shows how retrieval sets can be FRBRized. There are plans to keep the document up-to-date as MARC changes.
McCallum then spoke about downloadable transformation programs. LC wants people to experiment with this and to make FRBR distinctions. McCallum asked if this should be done on the MARC discussion list, the CC:DA list, or if there should be a FRBR list.
McCallum went on to speak about the goals of FRBR. There are different types of goals: end user goals and technical processing and staff goals. She then spoke about the history of FRBR. RLG has had record clustering for 10 years. WLN had a quadraplanar structure. OCLC has had matching and merging experience, which is what FRBR is doing. Individual libraries have had experience with local item records. The National Library of Canada has had experience with bringing things together at the work level.
An essential question is whether there will be cataloging consistency in the future. McCallum stated that costs, type of materials, budgets, and staff all affect what the bibliographic record looks like. MARC needs to have independence from AACR. It should be broader than AACR because it is used around the world. MARC needs to be able to support various attempts to FRBRize. McCallum concluded by saying that there is a large MARC and AACR investment and, though FRBR is very young, it has huge implications for cataloging.
Patton stated there were four areas he wanted to talk about relative to cataloging rules and practice and FRBR. He added that the FRBR model is revolutionary.
The first area that Patton discussed was the importance of relationships in FRBR. Traditional card catalogs did some of the things that FRBR does. In card catalogs relationships were very important: earlier and later titles for serials; earlier and later names; earlier and later editions. This was done in a variety of ways from linking notes to linking fields (7XX fields). He is not sure that these relationships have been made an integral part of the online catalog.
For example, at OCLC they tried to bring together all the Harry Potter works. This was fairly easy to do for those works because the works were recently and consistently cataloged. When OCLC tried to bring together all the Hamlet works, it was much more difficult. All the necessary data isnt there and what data is there isnt consistent. It is also hard to bring together works where uniform titles arent used, such as revised editions. Patton added that many catalogers do not understand what uniform titles are and when they should be used. The report of the Norwegian/Finnish project Data mining MARC to find FRBR brings these issues to light.
The second area Patton discussed was the importance of the relationship between roles of corporate bodies and persons. AACR allows some indication of roles for corporate bodies and persons, but most catalogers follow Library of Congress practice and only use role characteristics selectively, e.g., illustrators of childrens materials. This role information may be crucial for establishing these relationships. The Norwegian/Finnish project report brings these issues out as well.
The third area Patton mentioned was the attribute form of expression. It is closely related to discussions about the GMD and its role. The GMD is an unprincipled mixture of content and carrier.
The fourth area Patton spoke about was the process of creating a cataloging record where the manifestation and the work are cataloged at the same time. The process requires creation of the bibliographic description and then the addition of the access points. Before the adoption of AACR2, the process was the reverse. This change of process was a significant change. For cataloging in a shared database, the decision about whether something is a new manifestation may require that one know the work and expression first. This may require the cataloging community to think about the organization of the process and the rules yet again.
Tom Delsey began by asking why undertake this exercise in semantics. On one level it is an attempt to understand the data in format. Because the MARC format has evolved over the last 30 years, what was understood 30 years ago might not be understood in the same way today. The format evolved around the print catalog. The objects described now are much more complicated than they were 30 years ago. Libraries have moved from a card environment to the online use of the bibliographic record. Catalog databases have turned into integrated library systems. Interoperability is a big issue. Catalogs are not interfacing with publishers, archivists, etc., but they need to be able to do so.
Delsey asked if we still understand the data in the bibliographic records. The community is looking to import and export data such as author biographies, book covers, etc. There is interest in being able to import and export MARC records. Delsey wondered if the current format could support this traffic.
Another reason to undergo the exercise is to look at the ability to migrate to new data structures such as a new database or a new conceptual structure like FRBR. He added that it is not a pre-judged end result, and the exercise still has value.
Delsey then went through some of the conclusions drawn from the mapping. There was a substantial degree of correspondence between MARC data elements and FRBR that was not surprising since bibliographic records were used to develop FRBR. They looked at information from MARC and then tried to establish a model. Of the 23,000 data elements in the MARC format, not including tags or directory elements, 12,000 mapped directly into FRBR. There were 200 data elements that could be mapped from MARC to FRBR if the FRBR attributes were extended. Another 150 data elements acted as wildcards that are too loosely defined to map with algorithms, although a person could probably map them. In total, about two thirds of the data elements mapped to FRBR and this is a substantial degree of correspondence.
There were some significant anomalies that are included in the report. Some subfields didnt map because the subfields are defined by the content. Some subfields have a bunch of information jammed into them. With some of the data it was clear that the data was relevant to an attribute, but it was not clear how it was relevant. There is another group of data elements that doesnt seem to be controlled. There is still another third of the data that is outside the scope of FRBR and new entities related to work had to be added, but the entities dont show up in FRBR. The list could go on endlessly about from where works evolve.
Delsey concluded that:
- It is clear that the bibliographic entities in AACR have a significant impact on the structure of MARC. The class of materials has impacted the 006 and 008. This creates problems since that is used to structure the fixed fields.
- Headings in the MARC record make AACR embedded in the MARC structure. This wont transfer across communities.
- Formal structures in AACR have taken precedence over a structural foundation. Fields designed to reflect display of data do not do a good job reflecting relationships. This impacts how data can transfer to new data structures and across communities.
Lindlan opened the meeting for comments.
Attig added to Pattons list of issues the concept of authority records. A lot of the relationships dealt with in cataloging are shown in the authority records as cross-references rather than as added entries in bibliographic records. He would like to see the mapping of the model extended to authority records.
John Espley stated that VTLS has an implementation of FRBR. More clear-cut rules are needed for determining things, such as when is something a new expression. Is a new edition a new expression? For a literary work, is the first American edition a new expression? The way he interprets the FRBR guidelines it is not. He gave another example of where he would like more clear-cut rules. The book, The English Patient, and the movie, The English Patient, are two different works. But is the screenplay for The English Patient a new work or is it an expression of the movie? When working with serials does a title change mean it is a new work? Or do different regions mean it is a new work?
Attig asked Espley whether the VTLS FRBR implementation uses algorithms or if it is a mock-up of the display. Espley answered that it is a little of both: some things are manually manipulated, but they can also take a MARC record and it can be FRBRized by the computer.
Lindlan stated there is a serials task force looking at some of the serials and FRBR issues that Espley brought up. Everett Allgood is chairing a CONSER task force on what is a serial work.
Delsey stated that work and expression are defined in relative terms. In the cataloging culture we tend
to think we know what a work is unless it is a literary work. There must be some delving to know what the work really is. Some things become two works because two authors flip their names on titles pages. Delsey added
that FRBR makes a distinction between version designations. For example, if something is a 2nd draft that sometimes gets carried over as an edition statement and sometimes it doesnt. It will never be a simple matter that can be accomplished by machine algorithms. By adding a language edition to a uniform title, all the French translations are brought together, but the translations are not all the same and ultimately a person must examine the text. None of this is really mechanical.
Attig stated he found that useful but disturbing. It is moving from the more concrete to the more abstract. He added that it will require a lot of research to establish relationships correctly.
Patton stated the Italians within the IFLA committee have found deficiencies in the expression level definition. The Italians have written a paper that concludes there are too many things squeezed together at the expression level. For example, they do not consider different performances of a work by the same performers to be the same expression. They propose as many as 3 or 4 levels of expression. Patton will send the citation for the paper to the CC:DA and MARC lists.
Glazier asked how to cope with the millions of legacy records that were developed without these relationships noted. Delsey answered that many of those legacy records reflect attributes that may not be in a heading, but may be in a note. FRBR does not say everything has to be there. There are only about 10 elements that are identified as being necessary for identifying different expressions. The form of expression is largely reflected in type of record or the 008. If expression is to be used as an organizing tool, then the form of the expression is very important. Delsey added that language might be in the fixed fields or in the uniform title field. FRBR brings back some of the important functionalities of card and book catalogs. The cataloging community will need to look at the most important attributes for organizing expressions, including what the order of precedence will be during the organizing process.
Mitch Turitz commented that for serials, uniform titles are used in the opposite way than the way they are used in monographic cataloging. Uniform titles are used to distinguish between separate titles, not to bring titles together. In serials cataloging, sometimes even if the title doesnt change a new record might be created because a qualifier used in the uniform title has changed. Allgood answered that the CONSER task force will be considering this in its investigation.
Delsey stated that there are elements in uniform titles that pertain to the work, the expression, and, sometimes, the manifestation. In context, a uniform title is a heading for the work. Serials arent the only things that use uniform titles to distinguish two separate works. Delsey commented that this is not an either/or situation and all those problems will have to be investigated.
Weiss stated that other uses of the catalog should be considered. FRBR might provide benefits to other areas such as interlibrary loan, collection development, acquisitions, or preservation. If a patron is requesting a copy of a book, the request might get attached to a rare book record when the patron really just wants any copy of the book.
Jane Johnson made a comment on uniform titles. FRBR may address system issues around sub-arranging hit lists by main entry.
Delsey commented that in the analysis of the AACR rules, deficiencies were discovered in how AACR handles a work. Those deficiencies go back to how it handles relationships. There need to be better ways to draw out the relationships between the manifestation and the work. This model is moving from prescriptive grammar to descriptive grammar. Beacom stated that the Format Variation Working Group is looking at using citation headings that would be like a uniform title or an author/title entry.
Beacom stated that the work and expression concepts are relative terms. The different cataloging communities can use the FRBR model as a conceptual model. The communities can attempt to apply these concepts that would lead to a common understanding of what these terms mean. He stated that he needed to read the model several times before he was able to look at things through a FRBR lens. Our OPAC displays are comparable to the displays of book catalogs.
Lindlan ended the meeting by informing the group that a joint CC:DA/MARBI program on FRBR is being planned for ALA Toronto next year.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Cheri Folkner, CC:DA Intern
Lynnette Fields, CC:DA Intern