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 21047 by ISO TC 46 SC 9 WG 3 Work began in 2000 2004: 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! email@example.com 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