RDA Training Introduction

RDA Training Introduction
For February 5, 2013 Welcome to Day One of RDA training! I am so happy that this day has finally arrived, after many months of learning and planning. Today is a special day, as we begin with FRBR training, and so we have a larger group than will be usual here today, so that they can learn the basic FRBR concepts. We encouraged attendance by our Image and Metadata colleagues to learn the fundamentals/concepts of FRBR, but they don’t need to come back for the hardcore RDA. The rest of us, however, must continue with that nitty gritty. We will be together for 4 weeks, because there is much information beyond FRBR to cover. We are scheduled for Tu-W-Th from 9-12 through the end of the month. We have provided a handout that lists the full training calendar. Each day has a different teacher, so there is some variety. I want to begin by introducing some special guests who will be dropping in and out for the entire run of the training sessions: Chris Ashley from CSUCM Kit Herlihy (librarian emerita from CSUSM) Steve Savage from SDSU Tom Champagne and Arnold Josafat from Thomas Jefferson School of Law We don’t have time to go around the room and do introductions, but I encourage the UCSD folks to greet our visitors and make them feel welcome. The RDA Planning Group has been preparing for RDA training here for over a year. We began learning RDA ourselves in September 2011 by reading Chris Oliver’s book “Introducing RDA” together (and deciding that we didn’t need to make you all read that book, too. You’re welcome.) Since then, we brought you RDA Toolkit Training last May and RDA NACO training just after that. Since last summer, we have been reviewing and adjusting training materials and determining UCSD policies. The RDA Planning Group and I see RDA training as a wonderful experience to learn together a new standard that we are all going to share. We can do training for all of us at the same level. So even though some people might think “I do copy cataloging; why do I need to know this?” we all will be working with the same standard. So it is important (and I hope fun) for us to all learn this together. Let me introduce and acknowledge now the members of that group, who have worked amazingly and tirelessly toward this implementation. We are all equal partners in this effort, and you will be seeing them teaching, guiding discussion, and answering questions in the coming sessions. And of course we are at your disposal otherwise for your RDA questions as we move on to implementation. Shi Deng, Ryan Finnerty, Shirley Higgins, Jim Soe Nyun, Aislinn Sotelo, Adolfo Tarango, Marilu Vallejo (Round of loud applause) The basis of our RDA training are LC’s training materials. This is the course that they prepared for their catalogers. The RDA Planning Group has taken these materials and edited them for UCSD. We’ve switched “LC Core” to “PCC Core” and tried to take away the LC-centeredness, however you still might see some LC-ness. And while we have worked on this for months, we are not done yet. This training session is not perfect, and the content is very much still a moving target. We wish that we had all the right answers for you, but we don’t. We will all need to develop answers together. We as a profession will have a transition time from AACR2 to RDA, perhaps several years where all are uncertain of some details and our records will look wonky to us later. We will do the best that we can, understanding that we are in transition. You will learn about hybrid records – AACR2 records with some RDA elements – which will bring some messiness. But we will all move through this. Expect continuous change. There is some additional messiness because we are implementing RDA in MARC, and they don’t necessarily play nicely together. There are efforts underway now to devise a successor to MARC, which will bring an even bigger change for us than RDA does. But we’re not going to talk about that now. While we are giving your printouts of slides, and charts and tables with information and policy, things are changing. So we encourage you to check online for the latest information. As we go along, we will tell you where to look online for the latest information. You will need to check the BIBCO Standard Record (the BSR), for example, and certainly the RDA Toolkit for changes in policy. We will show you these tools (and more) along the way. This is a good time to remind you of our internal and occasional serial “Dancing with RDA,” which we will try to use to keep you apprised of changes. This is linked on the RDA Training website. But the authoritative source of information will usually be someplace outside of UCSD. We understand that people will need to miss occasionally. If you do, please check with your Unit Head about how to make up that training session. We can save handouts for you, but you may be asked to sit through an LC webinar, or to read our speaker notes for UCSD powerpoints for particular sessions. You will need to check with your Unit Head for the details. We do have a UCSD RDA Training website that is linked from TPOT that I want to show you quickly now. This is publicly available, and you can go here to find online the information printed in your binders. We do not intend to update our powerpoint slides, however, so that is static and increasingly outdated information. This will be the place to go if you miss a training session. While we are teaching RDA and FRBR “in the abstract,” UCSD follows OCLC and PCC policies in general. Our mantra is going to be conforming to PCC, which means the BIBCO Standard Record (BSR), with as few local customizations as possible. One expectation that we have is that, once RDA training is completed, we will each immediately begin to use RDA. Roughly, this means that on March 4, for textual monographs, catalogers should let go of AACR2 and begin record creation and editing using RDA. The exact date will vary for special formats, who will get specialized instruction later, so we will have a little bit of a “rolling implementation.” You should know, though, that integrating resources, serials, films and authority work has already been happening here in RDA, so really this is more of the same. This really will be a hard and fast “rule.” We want to move on to RDA immediately after training, so there is no opportunity to forget. The RDA Planning Group—will be here to answer questions and provide support to make this transition successful. We, too, are still learning, but we will all learn this together. Also beginning in March, we will set up regular RDA Q&A sessions so we can all learn together from real-life problems that we encounter. I’ll have more information about this later. As you create RDA records at the end of training, you will be revised by your Unit Head. We don’t expect this to be a difficult process, and don’t expect to keep anyone under revision for too long. We may need to do something special if the ebooks workload proves too big, but otherwise we think revision will be manageable. I want to finish with some housekeeping: Binders for everyone. You should also have a table of content and a set of tabs. Every day you will be getting more new materials to add, so please bring your binder back every day. There will be no homework Thanks to Susan Sweatt, we will have different treats every day; some goodies to keep you awake. Feel free to move about the room if needed, or take a bio break as needed Every session will have a break in the middle Know where the restrooms are Any questions? Now, over to Adolfo.

FRBR Overview and Application
Understanding Conceptual Relationships Presented February 5, 2013 by Jim Soe Nyun and Adolfo Tarango at UC San Diego With major thanks to the Library of Congress, whose materials form the basis of this presentation: Greetings and welcome to the first day of your RDA life. As Linda stated, each of you should have a binder with a table of contents and some tabbed leaves. Please open your binders, you should find four handouts, one called “Attributes of FRBR entities” and three diagrams, one showing the FRBR Group 1 entities, another entitled “Family of Works,” and the third called “RDA Relationship Overview.” Does everyone have these? As stated, at the start of each training session, we will provide you with a copy of the training materials for that day’s training. You should all have a copy for today’s presentation. If you haven’t already done so, please add today’s materials to your binder. Today’s session is the first of 12 training sessions that will cover 3 things. In the first 2 sessions, today and tomorrow, and in the 9th session, we will go over FRBR, the conceptual model that is the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. In the sessions 3-8, we will cover our new cataloging code RDA, Resource Description and Access. RDA is structured around the FRBR conceptual model so it is critical that you understand the FRBE conceptual model in order to understand the structure and the instructions given in RDA. In our last 3 sessions, we will cover our local implementation practices and provide some hands on practice. Our local implementation practices are a merger of national practices as outline in the RDA Bibliographic Standard Record guidelines, the RDA BSR, OCLC RDA guidelines, and the local cataloging practices we follow in order to meet local user and technical processing needs. Jim and I get the privilege of starting your FRBR/RDA training with today’s session. We have divided today’s session between us, with me doing the intro, course objectives, and the last half of today’s session. Jim gets the first half. We will be taking a break along the way. The presentation incorporates within it some short quizzes. In addition, there are three longer quizzes apart from the presentation proper which we will cut to at the appropriate places. We will do all these quizzes together. Any questions?

Course Objectives At the end of this course, you will be able to:
Understand FRBR as a conceptual model Understand FRBR terminology Identify FRBR Group 1 entities Identify FRBR Group 1 attributes Understand FRBR relationships Appreciate FRBR Group 2 and Group 3 entities Apply RDA: Resource Description & Access with a better appreciation of its underlying concepts Before turning this over to Jim, let go over today’s course objectives. At the end of this presentation you will have: An understanding of the FRBR conceptual model An understanding the terminology used in discussing FRBR Know and be able to identify the FRBR Group 1 entities and their attributes An understanding of FRBR relationships Love the FRBR Group 2 and 3 entities, and Have a basic enough understanding of underlying FRBR concepts sufficient to be able to implement RDA

Why FRBR? FRBR Why now? Several reasons:
RDA is based on this conceptual model RDA uses these terms and language To make the catalog work best for patrons Hi everyone. Today we are gathered to discuss Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, affectionately known by many as FRBR, though you’ll also hear others referring to it F R B R. Whatever you call it, you’ll need to get to a certain level of understanding its principles, and we’re here to help you get to that point. So…why FRBR? And—[ CLICK ]--Why now? [ CLICK ] There are several reasons: [ CLICK ] First off, Resource Description and Access, RDA, is based on the FRBR conceptual model. By this point I’m sure you realize that UCSD intends to implement RDA in a very few weeks. Learning FRBR and learning it now will help us reach this ambitious goal. [ CLICK ] RDA uses these terms and language… To make the catalog work best for patrons 4

Why FRBR? If you understand these concepts and terms
It will be easier to navigate the RDA text You can better apply RDA (because we can’t cover everything in classroom training -- unless you want training to last the rest of your lives) It will be easier to use cataloger’s judgment in context If you understand these concepts and terms [ CLICK ] It will be easier to navigate the RDA text [ CLICK ] You can better apply RDA (because we can’t cover everything in classroom training -- unless you want training to last the rest of your lives) [ CLICK ] It will be easier to use cataloger’s judgment in context About the final point: RDA allows many opportunities for applying cataloger’s judgment, but we will have the help of national implementation guidelines in the form of PCC’s Bibco Standard Record guidelines, as well as local policy documentation to help us navigate through some of the judgment processes. 5

Why Do Libraries Need FRBR?
To avoid becoming marginalized by other information delivery services To cut costs for the description and access to resources in our libraries To encourage redesign of our systems to move us into linked data information discovery and navigation systems in the Internet environment To make our bibliographic descriptions and access data more internationally acceptable And libraries need FRBR (click) so that we aren’t marginalized by other information delivery services. Using FRBR we can develop ways to repackage our shared metadata and present it as more interesting visual information such as timelines of publication histories, maps showing places of publication, build links between works and expressions, and make our data more accessible on the Web. (click) Using FRBR will allow us to cut the costs associated with describing and providing access to the resources in our libraries. We will be able to better take advantage of metadata from publishers and other sources and we can share metadata more than we have done in the past, reducing the costly, redundant creation and maintenance of bibliographic and authority data. (click) Use of FRBR will encourage the redesign of our systems to move us to linked data information discovery and navigation systems in the Internet environment. (click) Lastly, FRBR will allow us to make our bibliographic descriptions and access data more internationally acceptable. Tillett, Barbara. Keeping libraries relevant in the semantic Web with RDA: Resource Description and Access. First appeared in Serials, Nov issue, Vol. 24, no. 3. 6 6

FRBR Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
Conceptual model Not a set of rules Uses an entity relationship model, rather than descriptive analysis So…up to now I’ve covered the “Why?” part of what we’re doing in these training session. Now we come to FRBR itself. First off, as I mentioned earlier, FRBR stands for Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. [ CLICK ] FRBR is a conceptual model, which means it’s a generalized way to look at our bibliographic universe of things that libraries collect or want to make known to our users. It is intended to be independent of any cataloging code or implementation. [ CLICK ] And as such, it’s not a set of rules. Nor is it a data model, nor a metadata scheme, nor a system design. It’s none of those things. Rather, as the first bullet point stresses, FRBR is an abstract, conceptual model of all the things that libraries, museums, and archives collect for our users. [ CLICK ] FRBR uses an entity relationship model, not descriptive analysis. In other words, whereas a ruleset like AACR2 works carefully to describe a physical object, FRBR is primarily concerned with understanding how something in hand relates to other things in the bibliographic universe.

FRBR FRBR is an abstraction of how we can think about bibliographic records. Applying its principles we can facilitate relationships: between data elements, and between data and users To recap, then, FRBR is an abstraction of how we can think about bibliographic records. Applying its principles we can facilitate relationships: between data elements, and between data and users The FRBR conceptual model will be useful as a foundation for the development of systems, and it functions as a guide to the next generation of cataloging rules.

FRBR vs. RDA vs. MARC FRBR is a conceptual model
RDA is a cataloging standard that is based on the FRBR conceptual model MARC is an encoding scheme by which computers exchange, use, and interpret bibliographic information We’ve just talked a little about what FRBR is and isn’t. Now let’s talk about differences between FRBR and these other things, RDA and MARC. [Look at points below as they appear.] [ CLICK ] As I’ve stressed already, FRBR is a conceptual model [ CLICK ] RDA is a cataloging standard that is based on the FRBR conceptual model [ CLICK ] MARC is an encoding scheme by which computers exchange, use, and interpret bibliographic information Add to final point: MARC may be used to transmit cataloging carried out under a variety of rules, including RDA, AACR2, and AACR. It also can encode bibliographic information that conforms to other cataloging codes—or no code at all. It’s simply a big set or boxes of different sizes and shapes into which we place bibliographic data. It’s not the point of this introduction, but you’ll soon see that MARC may not be the best container for bibliographic information created under RDA rules in application of FRBR principles. Some things just don’t fit into the box.

FRBR User-centered, based on concrete user tasks: Find Identify Select
Obtain FRBR attempts to present a way of interpreting the model in order to organize the display of bibliographic information into hierarchical groups and help us build better catalogs. It helps us focus on what each part of a bibliographic record is there for. It should assist the catalog user in identifying relevant relationships, holdings, and characteristics of editions. In the end, it will hopefully make the catalog more useful to the user. So, the Functional part of the FRBR name is really going at what the model attempts to address – the tasks, the uses, the functions—that the data in bibliographic records needs to support. FRBR first defines a set of user tasks, [ CLICK ] Find [ CLICK ] Identify [ CLICK ] Select, and [ CLICK ] Obtain It then attempts to model the bibliographic universe in such a way that these tasks are met for our users. To make our bibliographic data, our catalogs, function well, first we need to know what our patrons need.

FRBR User Tasks Find Identify
to locate either a single entity or a set of entities as the result of a search using an attribute or relationship of the entity Identify to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar characteristics In this and the next slide let’s look closer at the FRBR user tasks, with the help of a live example from our local catalog. [ CLICK ] The first user task FRBR defines is Find. As you see here, this tasks supports a user in finding either a single entity or a set of entities as the result of a search using an attribute or relationship of the entity. The wording in this definition isn’t from FRBR, but from the Library of Congress. It contains two key concepts that we’ll return to later: [ CLICK ] attribute and [ CLICK ] relationship. [ CLICK ] FRBR’s second task is Identify, which [CLICK ] allows the user to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar characteristics. Living example: I want to watch the original 1933 motion picture version of King Kong. When I go to the library, I first want to find that they have that film, and then identify the that it is in fact the first version and not the later 1976 remake. We also want to be sure it’s the 1933 film, not the sound recording of the film score, not Kiki Smith’s artwork with the same title, nor the libretto to the “African jazz opera” titled King Kong. Not for presentation, but interesting to those reading this, is the official text from: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report (p. 8): “For the purposes of this study the functional requirements for bibliographic records are defined in relation to the following generic tasks that are performed by users when searching and making use of national bibliographies and library catalogues: ▪ using the data to find materials that correspond to the user’s stated search criteria (e.g., in the context of a search for all documents on a given subject, or a search for a recording issued under a particular title); ▪ using the data retrieved to identify an entity (e.g., to confirm that the document described in a record corresponds to the document sought by the user, or to distinguish between two texts or recordings that have the same title)” More on next slide

FRBR User Tasks Select Obtain
to choose an entity that meets the user's requirements with respect to content, physical format, etc., or to reject an entity as being inappropriate to the user's needs Obtain to acquire an entity through purchase, loan, etc., or to access an entity electronically through an online connection [ CLICK ] FRBR’s third user task is Select [ CLICK ] which lets the user choose an entity that meets his or her requirements with respect to content, physical format, etc., or to reject an entity as being inappropriate to the user’s needs. [ CLICK ] Obtain, the fourth and final FRBR user task. [ CLICK ] to acquire an entity through purchase, loan, etc., or to access an entity electronically through an online connection Living example: After having confirmed that the library has the 1933 King Kong that I want, I then have to select the DVD version and not the VHS version because I only own a DVD player. Afterward, I can then verify a copy is available to check out, and then walk downstairs to get it from the Arts Library. Again, not for the presentation, but FYI: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report (p. 8): ▪ “using the data to select an entity that is appropriate to the user’s needs (e.g., to select a text in a language the user understands, or to choose a version of a computer program that is compatible with the hardware and operating system available to the user); ▪ using the data in order to acquire or obtain access to the entity described (e.g., to place a purchase order for a publication, to submit a request for the loan of a copy of a book in a library’s collection, or to access online an electronic document stored on a remote computer).”

The FRBR Entity-Relationship Framework
Entities (a class of things) Attributes (characteristics of the entities) [RDA calls these “elements”] Relationships (associations among entities) To support the four user tasks, Find, Identify, Select and Obtain, FRBR develops a model comprised of Entities, Attributes and Relationships. [Talk about vocabulary and what is meant by Entities, Attributes, and Relationships. Talk about Attributes as a FRBR term that can be used interchangeably with the phrase “identifying characteristics” and is called “elements” in RDA.] A loose grammar comparison would be that entities are nouns, relationships are verbs, and attributes are adjectives. This is NOT an exact comparison, however, as many attributes, as we’ll see, are properties/”things” as well, so be clear if you use this analogy that it is a very loose analogy and should not be followed too far. We’ll devote most of the rest of the presentation discussing each of these three categories in greater detail.

The FRBR Entity-Relationship Framework
Entities: Group 1 Entities – Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items Group 2 Entities – Persons, Corporate Bodies, Families Group 3 Entities – Concept, Place, Event, Object So…Entities: The FRBR entities are sorted into 3 groups for the convenience of talking about them. [ CLICK ] Conveniently FRBR labels these Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 entities. The entities that make up Group 1 are Works, Expressions, Manifestations, and Items. Group 2 entities are Persons, Corporate Bodies, Families. These entities are now usually identified through authority records. Group 3 defines some additional entities that may be used as the subjects of works. Note that entities in Group 1 and Group 2 may also be the subjects of works. [Give examples.] In the strictest FRBR sense, however, entities in Groups 1 and 2 are not members of Group 3, though you will sometimes see them represented this way. Although FRBR describes three groups of entities, we are going to focus on Groups 1 (Works, Expressions, Manifestations and Items) and 2 (Persons and Corporate Bodies) today. Vocabulary in FRBR is important. Using Group 1 entities as examples, we can see in the following example how FRBR develops precision in talking about bibliographic entities.

“Book” Vocabulary Doorstop (item) “publication” at bookstore any copy
(Animation: elements appear on mouse clicks) Our English language, like most languages, can be very fuzzy. A single word may mean many things. For example: When we say ‘book,’ what we have in mind may be a distinct, physical object that consists of paper and a binding and can <click> sometimes serve to prop open a door or hold up a table leg – FRBR calls this <click> an item. When we say ‘book’ we also may mean <click> “publication,” as when we go to a bookstore to ask for a book identified by an ISBN – the particular copy does not usually matter to us, provided it has the content we want in a form we want and no pages are missing – FRBR calls this <click>manifestation. (manifestation) Cited from Patrick LeBoeuf, former chair of the IFLA FRBR Review Group 15 15 15 15

“Book” Vocabulary Who illustrated? (expression) Who wrote? (work)
(Animation: elements appear on mouse clicks) When we say ‘book’ as in <click> “who translated that book?” or “who illustrated that book?”– we may have a specific text in mind in a specific language or a translation – FRBR calls this <click>expression. *When we say ‘book’ as in <click> “who wrote that book?” - we could also mean a higher level of abstraction, the conceptual (intellectual or artistic) content that underlies all of the linguistic versions, the basic story being told in the book, the ideas in a person’s head for a book – FRBR calls this <click>work. We want our language to be more precise to help future catalogers and future systems designers speak the same language. (work) Cited from Patrick LeBoeuf, former chair of the IFLA FRBR Review Group 16 16 16 16

Which “book” are you cataloging?
When you catalog a “book” on your desk: You are working with a FRBR Group 1 Item The bibliographic record you create will represent a FRBR Group 1 Manifestation with some attributes of the contained Work and Expression Attributes of other FRBR group entities may appear in the bibliographic record Emphasize that the Item has the identifying characteristics needed to describe the contained work/expression and manifestation -- those entities are merely ways of looking at that item – from what the contents are or the physical presentation (the carrier).

WEMI (or IMEW?) FRBR Group 1 entities Work Expression Item
Manifestation Item Item Manifestation Expression Work (Animation: on first mouse click, the entities disappear; on second mouse click, they reappear in this order: Item, Manifestation, Expression, Work; at the same time, (or IMEW?) appears in header) FRBR Group 1 entities are Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item. In FRBR documentation, the entities are described in this order. You can use the acronym WEMI to help you remember these. However, since catalogers generally work with FRBR “Items” in hand, and create bibliographic records for FRBR “Manifestations,” we will introduce the four FRBR Group 1 entities in reverse order, starting with Item and moving up to Work. You’ll find that RDA is organized this way, starting with the items and manifestation and working its way up in abstraction towards work and expression. If you’re big into acronyms, you could use IMEW to help you remember the elements in reverse order. Here we have Scooter helping you remember the acronym for the reversed order of entities that we will be using today.

The Item in FRBR An item is a concrete entity
A single physical object (e.g., a copy of a one-volume monograph, a single audio cassette, etc.) or: Can comprise more than one physical object (e.g., a monograph issued as two separately bound volumes, a recording issued on three separate compact discs, etc.). An item is a concrete entity A single physical object (e.g., a copy of a one-volume monograph, a single audio cassette, etc.) or: Can comprise more than one physical object (e.g., a monograph issued as two separately bound volumes, a recording issued on three separate compact discs, etc.). Don’t confuse the FRBR item entity with an “item record” in an OPAC or ILS. Note the big difference that the FRBR item may be made up of more than one discrete physical object.

Quick Quiz! Identify the FRBR Item
A. Digitized version of the printed Oxford University Press text published in 2008? B. Leatherbound autographed copy in Rare Books Collection? C. French translation? D. London Symphony Orchestra 2005 performance? E. Shakespeare’s Hamlet? (Animation: titles appear on mouse click, answer at end) Point out that each of the choices is a FRBR entity. Although we have discussed Item only so far, we will come back to the others after we look at some of the other attributes of these entities. Add that I will talk through the list and then we will return to making our selection. 20 Tillett, Barbara. Library of Congress. March 4, FRBR: Things You Should Know, But Were Afraid To Ask 20

Quick Quiz! Which “book” is the FRBR Item?
A. We should order that book. B. I'd like to read that book in French. C. I have lost my book. D. That movie is based on my favorite book. (Animation: titles appear on mouse click, answer at end) As in the previous quiz each “book” in the multiple choice options is a FRBR entity. Riva, Pat. CLA 2010 Conference, Edmonton, Alberta. 2 June IFLA’s Conceptual Models and RDA

The Manifestation in FRBR
A manifestation represents all the physical objects that bear the same characteristics, in respect to both intellectual content and physical form Encompasses a wide range of materials Manuscripts Books Periodicals Maps Posters Sound recordings CD-ROMs Multimedia kits Now we go on to Manifestion, which is the next logical level of FRBR entities. Note that the second bullet point lists things that could be confused with items; manifestations, however, constitute the entire ALL the physical objects that bear the same characteristics.

Quick Quiz! Identify the FRBR Manifestation
A. Digitized version of the printed Oxford University Press text published in 2008? B. Leatherbound autographed copy in Rare Books Collection? C. French translation? D. London Symphony Orchestra 2005 performance? E. Shakespeare’s Hamlet? (Animation: titles appear on mouse click, answer at end) Point out again that each of the choices is a FRBR entity. So what makes the correct example a manifestation? It represents all of the Items in this specific publication. 23 Tillett, Barbara. Library of Congress. March 4, FRBR: Things You Should Know, But Were Afraid To Ask 23

Quick Quiz! Which “book” is the FRBR Manifestation?
A. We should order that book. B. I'd like to read that book in French. C. I have lost my book. D. That movie is based on my favorite book. (Animation: titles appear on mouse click, answer at end) Each “book” in the multiple choice options is a FRBR entity. Riva, Pat. CLA 2010 Conference, Edmonton, Alberta. 2 June IFLA’s Conceptual Models and RDA

The Expression in FRBR An expression is the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of: Alpha-numeric notation in a specific language Musical notation Choreographic notation Sound Image Object Movement Or any combination of such forms How the ideas are communicated Note that item and manifestation are physical, tangible objects, whereas expression is the first of two entities that have a conceptual existence only. You can’t touch an expression. It’s at this point that a creator realizes their creation. Note that this is not an exhaustive list, in that a work could take other forms of expression, and FRBR (p. 19, 3.2.2) lists an “etc.” in their list. Earlier it was mentioned that Group 2 entities could be identified in authority records. Some expressions, too, could be identified in authority records. Imagine for example an access point for the English translation of Tolstoy’s War and Peace. [Discuss the differences between one of these forms of expression as it manifests itself in the form of the Expression, Manifestation and Item.]

Quick Quiz! Identify the FRBR Expression
A. Digitized version of the printed Oxford University Press text published in 2008? B. Leatherbound autographed copy in Rare Books Collection? C. French translation? D. London Symphony Orchestra 2005 performance? E. Shakespeare’s Hamlet? (Animation: titles appear on mouse click, answers at end) [Discuss the answers and mention that the forthcoming discussion of attributes will give further rationale for what makes these two answers Expressions.] 26 Tillett, Barbara. Library of Congress. March 4, FRBR: Things You Should Know, But Were Afraid To Ask 26

Quick Quiz! Which “book” is the FRBR Expression?
A. We should order that book. B. I'd like to read that book in French. C. I have lost my book. D. That movie is based on my favorite book. (Animation: titles appear on mouse click, answer at end) You’ve seen these possible answers before. By now you should start feeling comfortable with the distinctions between the “books,” and so you might deduce that B is the correct answer. We will look at other entities and attributes later in the presentation. Riva, Pat. CLA 2010 Conference, Edmonton, Alberta. 2 June IFLA’s Conceptual Models and RDA

The Work in FRBR A work is abstract entity - ideas
Now we come to the final Group 1 Entity, Work. Work, according to FRBR, is a distinct intellectual or artistic creation. It is an abstract entity. Think of it as the ideas that a person has in their head. A work is realized through an expression in the form of some notation, like writing, musical notation, choreographic notation, or it can be sound, an image, an object, movement, etc., or any combination of these things. An expression can be a performance or a translation or a version of a particular work. It’s useful to identify works and expressions because we can use the names of works and expressions as a device to organize displays of information. Thus, as with some Expressions, some Works may be identified in authority records, as well as cited in bibliographic records. A work is abstract entity - ideas There is no material object one can point to It is recognized through individual realizations or expressions It exists only in the commonality of content between and among the various expressions

Quick Quiz! Identify the FRBR Work
A. Digitized version of the printed Oxford University Press text published in 2008? B. Leatherbound autographed copy in Rare Books Collection? C. French translation? D. London Symphony Orchestra 2005 performance? E. Shakespeare’s Hamlet? (Animation: titles appear on mouse click, answer at end) All right, by this point, you’ve probably used the process of elimination to come up with E as the answer. But I think that you can see that with “Shakespeare’s Hamlet” we’re talking about the work at a very high level of abstraction. If you know Hamlet, you’ve attained that knowledge by reading the text, watching the play or seeing a film made from the play. But none of these expressions or manifestations are equivalent with the Work of Hamlet, which exists as up in the realm of ideas. 29 Tillett, Barbara. Library of Congress. March 4, FRBR: Things You Should Know, But Were Afraid To Ask 29

Quick Quiz! Which “book” is the FRBR Work?
A. We should order that book. B. I'd like to read that book in French. C. I have lost my book. D. That movie is based on my favorite book. (Animation: titles appear on mouse click, answer at end) As before, each “book” in the multiple choice options is a FRBR entity. D corresponds to the very abstract idea that is the Work. Riva, Pat. CLA 2010 Conference, Edmonton, Alberta. 2 June IFLA’s Conceptual Models and RDA

Online Quiz 1: FRBR Terminology
Online Quiz – 15 minutes Multiple Choice Fill-in-the Blanks True/False Graded results at end of quiz We will work through the quiz as a group The online quiz is posted on the Cataloger’s Learning Workshop page ( 31 31

Intermission

FRBR Entities Beyond the Library: The Chair Example
The Work refers to any particular design of a chair thought up by a particular person. The Expression is the chair taking shape, as decisions are made about its size, color, and the materials that will be used to construct it. The Manifestation is the entire manufacturing run by Vitra in 1972 of Frank Gehry’s Wiggle side chair, using cardboard with masonite. The Item is the single chair in a museum exhibition. Welcome back from your break. [Either work through the Chair Example below, or go to the ca. 4 minute mark in the example video and discuss which FRBR attributes apply to the example being discussed.] In the first part of our presentation we looked in detail at the FRBR Group 1 entities. Just for fun, to apply what you’ve just learned, let’s take a different approach of looking at FRBR’s work, expression, manifestation, and item, and see how they might play out in the real world outside the library. Let’s think of a “chair,” and try to imagine how “chair” could be understood in FRBR terms. The work… The expression… The manifestation… Note that the operative words in this description are “entire manufacturing run.” The photo here is of a single examplar, which in FRBR is actually called [the item…CLICK] The item… is the single chair in a museum exhibition. Or the single chair that you are sitting in now. [If you don’t want to use “philosophy,” then simply express it as applying the concepts to something beyond a simple library resource] 33 33

Attributes of an Item Include, among others: Item identifier
Provenance of the item Marks/inscriptions Fingerprint Earlier I mentioned that Entities in FRBR have specific identifying characteristics. These characteristics are called Attributes. Entities have Attributes. Let’s start by going through the entities we’ve discussed already and look at some of the attributes associated with them. CLICK Following the IMEW sequence order that Scooter here is helping us remember—Item, Manifestation, Expression, Work— CLICK / CLICK let’s begin with Item. CLICK Here are some of the attributes that an item can have. [Go through list and explain each retained example.] This is a highly selective selection from the full list of attributes that an item can have. You can see the full list of item attributes on your handouts. You can also head over to the actual FRBR documentation. SHOW: pp of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report. Now would be a good time to direct your attention to your binders, where you’ll find a terrific crib sheet listing all the Attributes that can be associated with each of the FRBR Entities.

Item attribute example
Note from a bibliographic record: Extra-illustrated copy, with photographs of Robert-Houdin’s tomb, various obituaries, clippings, a performance handbill from 1848, etc., mostly tipped in, although a few are laid in. MS. Annotations in the hand of Houdini throughout and extensive notes on blanks at end. Autographed by Houdini on added free front-endpaper. Look at this note for an item in the collection of the Library of Congress. The note describes several identifying characteristics--specific attributes--of a single item. The main attribute that we see here is Marks/Inscriptions.

Quick Quiz : Identify the Item attribute
1? 2? 3? 4? And now we have another little quiz. Which of these four characteristics is an attribute of Item? Answer: LC copy information is the item attribute. For reference: 1=Variant title, manifestation attribute 2=Place of publication, manifestation attribute 3=Date of publication, manifestation attribute

Attributes of a Manifestation
Include, among others: Title of the manifestation Statement of responsibility Edition/issue designation Publication information: Place ; Publisher ; Date Series statement Form of carrier We looked at Publisher/distributor and Date of publication/distribution of the manifestation earlier in the presentation, when we took the first quiz. Now let’s go into more depth on the Attributes of Manifestation. NOTE: Manifestation attributes have both to do with identifying the manifestation and with describing the physical carrier. So form of the carrier, for example, has to do with VHS vs. DVD vs. reel-to-reel film. Extent of the carrier has to do with how many pages or how many DVD’s, etc. Physical medium has to do with what the resource is made of. This brings up a secondary point, which is that some of the attributes apply to one type of resource but not to another; or perhaps are not as important to another type of resource. For example, if what I am describing is a painting, then I want to know specifically what type of canvas, what type of paint, etc. But if I am describing a book, then I can generally assume that it is made out of paper, unless of course it’s one of the artist’s books currently on display in the exhibit cases just outside this room.. See pp of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report ( There are a lot!

Quick Quiz : Identify the Manifestation attribute
1? 2? 3? 4? Title of the manifestation (2) and dimension (3) are both manifestation attributes. For reference: Is creator, and therefore a relationship between a Work (G1) and Person (G2). (4) Is a citation note and therefore also a relationship between works. The H. Price work cites this work. It’s a relationship between two separate works.

Attributes of an Expression
Include, among others: Form of expression Date of the expression Language of expression Extent of the expression Summarization of content We looked at Language of expression and Medium of Performance (Musical Notation or Recorded Sound) – and remember, we learned that a performance is an expression-- earlier in the presentation, when we took the first quiz. Now let’s go into more depth on the Attributes of Expression. [ CLICK ] The Attributes of an Expression include the following [ CLICK ]. [Go through list, but highlight Extent of the expression, which could be characterized by the number of words in the work vs. extent of the manifestation, which could describe the number of pages in the publication. One is specific to the Expression, the other is specific to the carrier of the Manifestation.]. For the complete list, see pp of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report ( The list is also in your handy crib sheet. Title of the expression exists in FRBR, but was removed in FRAD because to identify an expression you must first identify the work it expresses, which carries with it the preferred title of the work – all other titles can be considered variant titles of the work, including titles in translation – but not to be confused with the titles proper of the manifestations which are transcribed as you find them on a particular item. Date of the expression is one that is especially important for laws.

Quick Quiz : Identify the Expression attribute
1? 2? 3? The correct choices for Attributes of Expression: 3=summarization of content, expression attribute (Good to note that it does not HAVE to come from us.) 4=Supplementary content, expression attribute (Mention that page numbers, however, belong to the Manifestation) For reference: 1=statement of responsibility, manifestation attribute: It’s a STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY; Don’t confuse what it is with what it’s saying. 2=series statement, manifestation attribute NOTE: Supplementary content is an attribute of Expression found in RDA, but not in FRBR. This is a good opportunity to point out that while RDA is based on FRBR, it is not an exact match, because FRBR’s relationships are only examples, not an exhaustive list of relationships. 4?

Attributes of a Work Include, among others: Title of the work
Form of work Date of the work Context for the work We looked at Title of the Work and Form of Work earlier in the presentation, when we took the first quiz. [ CLICK ] Now let’s go into more depth on the Attributes of a Work. [ CLICK ] Title of the Work is one of those big important things, as it is the primary identifier we start with – the name for the work. In a very few days you’ll learn that—spoiler alert!--RDA calls this the preferred title. We will look at Relationships in the next section of the presentation. A very important identifying characteristic of a work is shown in the relationship to the name of the creator. It’s important to remember that some of these things are not always known. For example, date of the expression that we just discussed, or date of the work, are often not known. We usually let the date of the manifestation stand in for those dates, since it is one that we do know and they are mostly close in time. Some attributes are not things we necessarily record in a bibliographic record for library resources, such as context for the work (historical, social, intellectual, artistic, or other context within which the work was originally conceived). However, it is good to note here that FRBR is intended to apply beyond just libraries, to museums and archives as well, where such information is highly important and very likely to be recorded in some way. For the full list, check out pp of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report (

Quick Quiz : Identify the Work attribute
1? 2? 3? The answer to this quiz is 1: 1=Title of work, work attribute. Note that the entire string however talks about the Expression, as language is an attribute not of the Work, but of the Expression. For reference: 2=other title information, manifestation attribute (but also language of translation information, which is an expression attribute) 3=form of expression, expression attribute (336 = The form of communication through which the work is expressed) 4=series numbering, manifestation attribute 4?

Online Quiz 2 Attributes of FRBR Group 1 Entities
Online Quiz – 15 minutes Multiple Choice True/False We will work through the quiz as a group Okay, now it’s time for our second online quiz. This one covers the attributes of the FRBR Group 1 Entities. There will be some multiple choice and true/false question and we’ll do the quiz together as with our first quiz. (Go to online quiz, break after quiz) The online quiz is posted on the Cataloger’s Learning Workshop page ( 43 43

Entity Relationships and FRBR
Inherent relationships: work “is realized by” by an expression expression “is embodied in” a manifestation manifestation “is exemplified by” an item Welcome back. Any questions before we get started? In this part of the presentation we are going to cover identifying Group 1 entities and touch upon their entity relationships. As you should now know, FRBR is an entity-relationship model, so it shouldn’t be a big surprise to hear that we need to understand how relationships are defined and set up in order to make sense of FRBR. (click) The Group 1 entities have between themselves, what are called “inherent” relationships. That is, relationships that exists due to the very nature of the entities. (click) First off, there is a relationship between a work and its expression in that a work “is realized by” an expression. It follows then, that there is an inherent relationship between an expression and a manifestation (click) in that the expression “is embodied by” a manifestation. Lastly, what do you think is the inherent relationship between a manifestation and an item? (click for answer). Let’s look at a visual representation of the Group 1 inherent relationships. 44

Work Expression Manifestation Item FRBR Group 1 Entities
is realized through Expression In this diagram, you can see how the Group 1 entities are related with the specific type of relationship given in text. The dotted line separates the abstract entities from the physical entities; manifestations and items are the things we can physically perceive, works and expressions are only conceptualized in our minds. Questions? is embodied in Intellectual/Artistic Content Physical – Recording of Content Manifestation one many is exemplified by Item 45

Quick Quiz! Identifying Group 1 Entities
Identify the FRBR Group 1 entities: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows We are now going to quiz ourselves to see if we can identify Group 1 entities. For our example we will use the Harry Potter series of books. Looking at this list, what Group 1 entity - work, expression, manifestation, or item - are we dealing with? [click for answer “works”, moderate discussion if any] Works

Adaptations: Movie: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) Video game: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) What Group 1 entity are we dealing with here? (click for answer). In FRBR, these could be expressions of the same work or these may be considered new Works. The decision on calling them works will be based on our cataloging rules, not on FRBR. Let’s take a break from this quiz and look at a diagram of content relationships. The diagram shows a “magic line” where our cataloging rules, RDA, will declare when we have a new work. Expressions or Works!

Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point
1Based on diagram in “Bibliographic Relationships,” Barbara B. Tillett. Ch. 2 in: Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge, edited by Carol A. Bean and Rebecca Green. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, p Family of Works Equivalent Derivative Descriptive Free Translation Review Microform Reproduction Edition Casebook Summary Abstract Dramatization Simultaneous “Publication” Abridged Edition Criticism Digest Novelization Screenplay Copy Libretto Illustrated Edition Evaluation Revision Change of Genre Exact Reproduction Parody Translation Annotated Edition Expurgated Edition Imitation This diagram shows a continuum of the relationships within a family of works (click). Moving from left to right following this red arrow we go from works, to expressions of those works, to what are considered totally new works. On the left (click) are items considered to have equivalent content and therefore are considered to be the same expression of the same work. Moving to right, we are now introducing change to the content, like a translation, (click). In this middle area, we have items that have derivative relationships to the work and things like revisions, illustrated editions, and arrangements are considered to be different expression of the same work. As further changes to the content occur, we move further to the right, farther away from the original work. Once a derivation crosses the “magic line” (click) of becoming more of the work of another person or corporate body, we will consider it a new work. It is still part of the family of related works, even when the content becomes only descriptive of the original work (click). Works in a descriptive relationship can also be said to be in a subject relationship because the subject of such a work is the original work, for example, a commentary on the original work. The ability to inform the user of these related works ties back to the collocating and finding functions of a catalog. We need to show users pathways to related materials. The FRBR model highlights these important relationships which we need to reflect in our catalogs and resource discovery systems. Let’s continue on our side bar and explore more about relationships. Same Style or Thematic Content Variations or Versions Facsimile Arrangement Commentary Slight Modification Reprint Adaptation Original Work-- Same Expression Same Work – New Expression New Work Cataloging Rules Cut-Off Point 48

Content relationships: Equivalence Derivative Descriptive Structural relationships: Whole/part Part-to-part Sequential Accompanying Shared characteristics The diagram we just saw covers the content relationships, that is, the relationship of the content of the item you have to the content of the original work: These relationships are called equivalence, derivative, and descriptive. Works also have structural relationships: whole/part, part-to-part, sequential, and accompanying. Can some give us an example of an item that has a whole/part relationship? Thank you. Lastly, there are types of characteristics called shared characteristics, where one characteristic is shared among entities. We mentioned this on a previous slide, anyone remember an example? [title, author, etc.] Okay, let’s go back to our quiz. 49

Original English version (2000) Bloomsbury (UK) hardcover Bloomsbury (UK) paperback Bloomsbury (UK) paperback (adult cover) Scholastic (US) hardcover Scholastic (US) paperback Raincoast (Canada) hardcover Raincoast (Canada) paperback Penguin (Canada) paperback (adult cover) Expression Manifestations Continuing with our Harry Potter example, if we are talking about the original print English version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire that came out in 2000, what entity are we discussing? (click for answer) Okay, if we are discussing the hardcover and paperbacks listed here, what entity are we discussing? (click for answer)

Translations Arabic Hardcover Softcover Finnish Italian Expressions Expression Manifestations Expression Manifestations Okay, if we are discussing translations in general, what entity are we discussing? (click for answer) What about the individual language translations? (click for answer) And each of their hardcover and paperbacks? (click for answer) Expression Manifestations

Audiobooks Jim Dale’s reading (2000) Listening Library: 17 cassettes Listening Library: 12 CDs Stephen Fry’s unabridged reading (2001) BBC Audiobooks: 14 CDs BBC Audiobooks: 18 cassettes Expressions Expression Manifestations Expression Manifestations What about audiobooks, what group 1 entity do they represent? (click for answer) What about the readings from Dale and Fry’s? (click for answer) A reading by a narrator is considered a performance, they are a contributor at the expression level. Each time there is a different narrator, there is a new expression. And the cassettes and the CD’s of those readings? (click for answer)

Audiobooks in translation French CD Cassette Japanese Expressions Expression Manifestations Expression Here, we are considering translations of audiobooks, what entity are they? (click for answer) And for each specific language translation? (click for answer) And the CD and cassettes, what entities are we considering here? (click for answer) Manifestations

Original English version (2000) Scholastic (US) hardcover Barcoded copy in the LC collection Expression Manifestation Item Okay, to finish up our quiz, what entity is the original English version from 2000? (click for answer) The Scholastic hardcover published in the US? (click for answer) The barcoded copy located at LC? (click for answer) Okay, let’s put together some of what we’ve just covered about the Group 1 entities and their relationships into a diagram. 54

Expressed/Is expressed by
Created/Created by Pride and prejudice (Work) Jane Austen (Creator) Expressed/Is expressed by Text in French translation (E) Spoken word in English (E) Text in original English (E) Manifested/Is manifested by Art Cannot Be Damaged, Inc., 2009 (M) Editions ABC, 2002 (M) Audio Pub. Co (M) T. Edgerton, 1813 (M) Gutenberg.org, 1998 (M) I’m not going to cover this diagram in any detail, but it does provide a visual aid with more specific examples to help you understand the relationships between the Group 1 entities. Any questions? Exemplified/Is exemplified by Owned by ? (I) Owned by LC (I) 1 Owned by LC with condition(I) Owned by NLSBPH (I) Owned by LC with barcode (I)

Persons, corporate bodies, and families responsible for:
Group 2 Entities Persons, corporate bodies, and families responsible for: the intellectual or artistic content, the physical production and dissemination, or the custodianship of the entities Up to this point, I have only mentioned the relationships inside the Group 1 entities. Before we move on to relationships between and among the other groups, let me introduce you to the other groups of entities starting with the Group 2 entities. What are the Group 2 entities? (click) Basically, they are human beings, as individuals or as groups. They are responsible for the Group 1 entities in many different ways, either because they are the creators of the Group 1 entities, because they are responsible for their production or dissemination, or because they have custodial responsibility over them. We are familiar with the Group 1 entities of persons and corporate bodies as they are part of our AACR2 vocabulary. New under FRBR are families. Families are now considered capable of authorship, production, custodianship, etc., the same as persons and corporate bodies. Very important, while most of the time the Group 2 entities are human, under RDA animals, spirits, and fictional characters can also be a Group 2 entity. Questions? Let’s look at some basic relationships the Group 2 entities exhibit. 56

Group 2 Entities : basic relationships
FRBR - Tillett presentation, March 4, 2009 Group 2 Entities : basic relationships Person Wagner, Richard, Created by Musical Work Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg (Opera) Creates Created by Creates In this illustration, we have a person (click), Richard Wagner, and a musical work (click), the opera Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg. There are two relationships between these two entities (click), the opera is created by Wagner, and Wagner created the opera (click). There is also another work (click), the libretto for the opera. Again, there are two relationships between these two entities (click), the libretto is created by Wagner and the Wagner created the libretto (click). Questions (might get one about the relationship between the libretto and the opera) Literary Work Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg (Libretto) 57 57 57 57

FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data)
User tasks: Find: Find an entity or set of entities corresponding to stated criteria Identify: Identify an entity Clarify (Justify): Document the authority record creator’s reason for choosing the name or form of name on which an access point is based. Contextualize (Understand): Place a person, corporate body, work, etc. in context Example: WorldCat Identities: Okay, we’re going to take another brief side trip and talk a bit about the Functional Requirements for Authority Date, or FRAD. Like FRBR, FRAD is an entity-relationship model and the Group 2 entities are FRAD entities. Like the FRBR entities, the FRAD entities were created with user tasks in mind. There are four user tasks the FRAD entity-relationship model supports: Find, Identify, Clarify (or Justify), and Contextualize (or Understand). The first two user tasks are the same as in the FRBR model. The last are new. Most of you have already taken the RDA NACO training and have already covered this model. If you have questions about this, I refer you to Ryan, our NACO coordinator, who will be happy to discuss this with you in detail. For our purposes here, just keep in mind that, as we discuss the characteristics of the Group 2 entities, that they were designed to support these specific user tasks. 58

FRAD Attributes Attributes of a person Affiliation Address
Language of person Field of activity Profession / occupation Biography / history Other informational elements associated with the person Title of person Dates associated with the person (birth / death / period of activity Gender Place of birth Place of death Country Place of residence So what are some of these characteristics? Like the Group 1 entities, the Group 2 entities have attributes. This is a partial list of the attributes of a person. These attributes are things you can record in an authority record and in so doing create a much richer authority record than was possible under AACR2, making it easier to identify a person. 59

FRAD Attributes Attributes of a family Attributes of a corporate body
Type of family Dates of family Places associated with family Field of activity History of family Attributes of a corporate body Place associated Dates associated Language of the corporate body Address Field of activity History Other information associated with the corporate body Similarly, here are partial lists of the attributes for families and corporate bodies. Again, the ability to record these attributes in RDA authority records creates a much richer data environment that better serves our users and ourselves. For those of you who have been creating RDA authority records, any thoughts about recording these new attributes? Before we move on to the Group 3 entities, any questions about the Group 2 entities? 60

Group 3 Entities (FRSAD)
Group 3 Entities represent an additional set of entities that serve as the subjects of works: Concepts Objects Events Places Group 1 and 2 Entities may also be subjects of works Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data The Group 3 entities are the subject entities. They are concepts, objects, events, and places. While not technically defined as Group 3 entities, keep in mind that the Group 1 and the Group 2 entities can also be used as subjects. Can someone give us an example of a Group 1 entity used as a subject? Good, how about a Group 2 entity used as a subject? Thank you. Let’s look at some basic Group 3 relationships. 61

Group 3 Entities : basic relationships
FRBR - Tillett presentation, March 4, 2009 Group 3 Entities : basic relationships Work Songs of Innocence and Experience Person Blake, William, Created by Creates Is Subject of Has Subject Has Subject Work Approaches to Teaching Blake Concept/Topic Literary education Has Subject Let’s illustrate some basic Group 3 relationships (click). We have already seen this relationship between a creator and their work diagramed, in this case, the person Robert Gleckner and the work, Approaches to Teaching Blake, have a creates/created by relationship. We have the same relationship (click) between the person William Blake and the work Song of Innocence and Experience. We now introduce the concept “Literary education” (click). It has a “has subject/is the subject of” relationship to the work Approaches to Teaching Blake (click). But the work Approaches to Teaching Blake (click) also has a “has subject” relationship with the work Songs of Innocence, and it also has an “is subject of/has subject” relationship with the person William Blake. Questions? Created by Creates Is Subject of Person Gleckner, Robert F. 62 62 62 62

Relationships also exist between Groups Group 1 WEMI to Group 2 P/F/CB Group 1 WEMI to Group 3 C/O/E/P Group 2 P/F/CB to Group 3 C/O/E/P performs Artist Song You will recall we discussed the inherent relationships between the Group 1 entities and touched upon the relationships between the Group 1 and Group 2 entities. However, relationships exits all over the place, but we only care to bring out the ones we consider important in supporting the user tasks. For example, we have an artist (click) that has a name (click), an attribute of a person (click). We also have a song (click) which has a title (click) which is an attribute of a work (click). And we have a relationship between the artist and the song (click) which is a “performs/was performed by” relationship (click). Let’s look more closely at some Group 1 to Group 2 relationships. was performed by has has Name --an attribute of a Person Title --an attribute of a Work 63

Group 1 WEMI to Group 2 P/F/CB Work Creator (author) Expression Contributor (editor) Manifestation Manufacturer (Printer) This chart shows some specific Group 1/Group 2 relationships. On the left are some Group 2 entities, on the right are the Group 1 entities. You can see how specific Group 2 entities have some very specific one-to-one relationships with Group 1 entities. Does the specificity of these relationships make sense to you? (Discussion?) Item Owner (Current owner)

Group 2 P/F/CB to Group 2 P/F/CB Person (Alternate identity Person (Alternate identity) Corporate body (Employer) (Earlier name) Person (Employee) Corporate body (Later name) Person (Progenitor) Similarly, specific relationships exists among each of the Group 2 entities as shown here: (click) alternate identities of a person, (click) a corporate body as an employer has a relationship with a person as an employee and that same corporate body has a relationship with its later name, (click) and a person as the founding member of a family has a relationship with the family descendants of which one of them is a family member and another founded a company and so that is another relationship between a person and a corporate body. We fine, that’s all kind of neat and tidy, but so what? Well, it all comes back to helping the user and the user tasks. Person (Family member) Family (Descendants) (Founder) Corporate body (Founded organization)

Back to User Tasks Comparison of FRBR and FRAD user tasks: Find Find
Bibliographic Data Authority Data Find Identify Select Obtain Find Identify Clarify (Justify) Understand (Contextualize) We started our presentation looking at the FRBR user tasks and later on we touched on the FRAD user tasks. Let’s compare the two. (click) For bibliographic data they were: Find, Identify, Select, and Obtain. For authority data they were: Find, Identify, Clarify, and Understand. As we move forward with our trainings and eventually, as you start cataloging in RDA, keep in mind that these are the functions we are trying to enable, that the FRBR and FRAD models were developed to make our work more actionable, more usable by users.

Bibliography Childress, Eric, CO-ASIS&T Program, Columbus, OH. 21 July What’s FRBR? Riva, Pat. CLA 2010 Conference, Edmonton, Alberta. 2 June IFLA’s Conceptual Models and RDA Tillett, Barbara. Library of Congress. March 4, FRBR: Things You Should Know, But Were Afraid To Ask We still have our last quiz to take, but to end our slide show; here is a bibliography of some resource you may wish to consult. Any last question before we move on to the quiz? 67

Online Quiz 3: Group 2 & 3 entities, Relationships
Online Quiz – 15 minutes Multiple Choice True/False Graded results at end of quiz We will work through the quiz as a group The online quiz is posted on the Cataloger’s Learning Workshop page ( 68 68

RDA Training Introduction

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "RDA Training Introduction"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

RDA Training Introduction

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "RDA Training Introduction"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback