Presentation on theme: "Identifying textual works ISTC: controversy and potential Patrick Le Bœuf FRBR in 21st century catalogues: an invitational workshop Dublin, Ohio, May 2-4,"— Presentation transcript:
Identifying textual works ISTC: controversy and potential Patrick Le Bœuf FRBR in 21st century catalogues: an invitational workshop Dublin, Ohio, May 2-4, 2005
Facts and figures to start with ISTC = International Standard Text Code ISO DIS by ISO TC 46 SC 9 WG 3 Work began in : CISAC / Nielsen BookData / R. R. Bowker Consortium elected as future Registration Authority May 30, 2005: deadline for approval by ISO members
Why ISTC? Digital environment of the text supply chain: e-production, e- formats, e-commerce… Other available identifiers for abstract content: ISRC, ISWC, ISAN Need for an identifier above the ISBN level, above the publication (in whatever form) level
Who was involved in the ISTC development? librarians rights societies publishers insisted on FRBR- compatibility insisted on -ONIX- compatibility focused on the authors viewpoint
A key concept: Functional Granularity Functional Granularity means: –If I need it, I can do it –If I dont need it, I dont have to do it As a consequence, ISTC applies to various things, meets various needs
What does ISTC identify at all? Overall content ForewordTexts 1 & 2 ForewordText 1 Translation of text 1 Text 2 Illustra- tions Principle of Functional Granularity ForewordText 1, bilingualText 2, illustrated
What qualifies as a distinct textual work? Text Collection (anthology, etc.) Chapter (section, act, scene…) Translation Digest Adaptation Principle of Functional Granularity ISTC notion of a Work different from FRBR
Irreconcilable views? (1) Hamlet + Tamburlaine ISTC Hamlet illustrated ISTC Tamburlaine illustrated ISTC Hamlet ISTC Tamburlaine ISTC
Irreconcilable views? (2) FRBR: –Language = Attribute of an Expression, not of a Work (although FRAR recognizes the Original Language of the Work attribute) –The Work Hamlet is not in English; it has English, French, Spanish, etc. Expressions ISTC: –Language = Mandatory element in ISTC metadata for a textual Work –The Work Hamlet is in English and has derived Works in French, Spanish, etc.
Reconciling the irreconcilable? FRBR-CRM Harmonization Group: –A Work cannot be identified unless you identify a representative Expression thereof –A Work has a representative Expression that has a Language (= Original Language of the Work in FRAR) A proposal for reviewing FRBR: –Adopt the FRAR Original Language of the Work attribute and define it as reflecting the privileged relationship between the Work Hamlet and the English language: Hamlet is not in English, but was first expressed in English (or even was conceived in English?)
Functional Granularity again If librarians dont need a given type of ISTC (e.g., Hamlet+Tamburlaine), they dont have to use it If librarians need a type of ISTC that is not extant (e.g., Hamlet-as-a-FRBR- supralinguistic-Work), they can apply for it –Problems: It costs money – wholl pay? How to explicate in ISTC metadata the subtle distinction between Hamlet-the- Expression (Language attribute = English) and Hamlet-the-Work (Original Language of the Work attribute = English)?
ISTC potential for libraries (1) xISBN is defined at the FRBR Work level ISTC matches more or less the Expression level ISTC could be used to define Expression-subsets of xISBN Possible application for FictionFinder: not just Hamlet in German, but precisely which German translation of Hamlet
ISTC potential for libraries (2) ILL: Tool for suggesting alternative choices when the requested item is unavailable Cataloguing: automated reuse of ISTC metadata in authority records for Expressions??? Cataloguing: Tool for checking accuracy of data by comparing info from title-page with info from ISTC metadata OPACs: Tool for making FRBRization easier (at least at the Expression level, possibly at the Work level too)
ISTC in a network of identifiers Work Expression Manifestation
Practical issues ISTC is a nice intellectual construct, but is it feasible? Not all ISTCs will be useful to librarians – should they record those that are not? Should librarians extend the ISTC scope to cover (super)works? Are libraries willing to manage retrospective ISTCization?
Thanks for your patience! Thanks to all those who re-read this presentation and helped me correct it: Anila Angjeli Mark Bide Martin Doerr Elizabeth Giuliani René Lloret Godfrey Rust Jean-Louis Pineau