1. The book, the bug and the bangle: a parallel and a paradox Washington, International CRM Symposium “Sharing the knowledge” March 26-27, 2003 Patrick Le Bœuf, Bibliothèque nationale de France, member of CRM-SIG & ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9, chair of the IFLA FRBR WG

2. Introduction Mappings = a tool for testing CRM’s robustness 2000-2001: mappings from AMICO, Dublin Core, & EAD DTD to CRM 2001-2002: I mapped FRBR [Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records] to CRM –It induced some changes in CRM –It revealed some inconsistencies in FRBR

3. (For those who are not familiar with FRBR:) FRBR’s core = Group 1 of Entities: Work Expression Manifestation Item I purchased a book ; it is on my shelf (and it occasionally serves to wedge a table leg) Do you have this book, identified by ISBN 0-1234-5678-X? I wrote a book ; it is in English My book is also available in Japanese (though I don’t know a single word of Japanese) The word book has at least four distinct meanings…

4. Mapping issues 1st problem: “vagueness”: too frequent use of: P2 has type (is type of) E55 Type For instance: FRBR Expression attribute “Expected Frequency of Issue (serial)” maps to: E73 Information Object P2 has type E55 Type (Expression) P2 has type E55 Type (Serial) P2 has type E55 Type (Weekly or Monthly or Quarterly etc. (Expected Frequency of Issue))

5. Mapping issues 2nd problem: difference in scope: CRM covers the whole “universe of discourse” of museums’ cultural information FRBR is incomplete and only covers “bibliographic records” (i.e., it excludes info about authors, subjects, etc.) We’re waiting for FRANAR [Functional Requirements And Numbering of Authority Records] for a model that holds for the whole “bibliographic universe”

6. Mapping issues 3rd problem: logical flaws in FRBR: –FRBR does not distinguish between “things” and their “names” –FRBR (and catalographic tradition, beyond FRBR) does not distinguish between “title-as- appellation” and “title-as-inscription”, “name- as-appellation” and “name-as-inscription”

7. Mapping issues Above all, working on this FRBR  CRM mapping was an opportunity for me to focus on: –A parallel between library catalogues as reflected in FRBR and museum documentation as reflected in CRM: books are closer to bugs than to bangles –A paradox underlying the very activity of cataloguing in current library practice: librarians focus on things that may not “exist”

8. A parallel CRM’s focus for Fine Arts Museums = on individual objects (or collective objects) CRM’s focus for Natural History Museums = on individual objects and the classes (“taxons”) they belong to FRBR’s (and Catalographic Tradition’s) focus = on classes (“publications”)

9. A parallel What does “Sharing the knowledge” mean? CRM: sharing knowledge about contexts for the existence of individual objects, not the description of these (unique) objects FRBR (& ISBDs): –exchanging actual descriptions of classes (i. e., “publications”); –the context for their coming to existence does not matter –info about items is not deemed relevant for interchange and therefore not coped with

10. A (paradoxical) parallel Focusing on classes rather than instances makes cataloguers’ job closer to CRM-as- for-Natural-History-Museums than to CRM-as-for-Art/Archaeology-Museums:

11. A (paradoxical) parallel National Bibliographic Agencies Natural History Museums BookBug Describe the “item”“prototype” or “specimen” Assume common features for all other instances of the “manifestation” “taxon” other libraries check if their item exemplifies the same manifestation other museums check if their specimen belongs to the same taxon

12. A parallel Physical item Type TaxonPublication Content materialises has type belongs to embodies Art/Archaeology museums: the bangle Natural history museums: the bug Libraries: the book To sum it up:

13. A parallel Physical item Type Content P128 is carrier of (is carried by) P2 has type (is type of) Art/Archaeology museums: the bangle (or painting, sculpture, etc.) CRM E20 Biological Ob- ject (bug) or E84 Information Car- rier (bangle, book) FRBR E55 Type E73 Information Object Item Manifestation Work Expression Physical item Publication Content belongs to (exemplifies) embodies Libraries: the book (or CD, movie, map, etc.) Physical item Taxon belongs to (P2 has type (is type of)) Natural history museums: the bug (or plant, etc.) To put it in CRM & FRBR terms:

14. A paradox In “traditional” library catalogues, the 2 FRBR entities that prove to be crucial = MANIFESTATION WORK (though at a lesser degree) In CRM’s “philosophy”, these 2 notions do not even seem to exist as entities… What is it then that librarians catalog?

15. A paradox An example: FRBR and CRM would not model these “things” the same way:

16. A paradox Seikilos Song (original notation) Seikilos Song (modern transcription) Seikilos Song (recorded performance) CRM E73 Information Object CRM P130 shows features of P130.1 kind of similarity: E55 Type “Transcription” ( CRM E73 Information Object) FRBR Expression FRBR Work FRBR is realized through CRM P130 shows features of P130.1 kind of similarity: E55 Type “Performance” ( CRM P130 shows features of)

17. WORK = analogous to signs in linguistics, & = signifying, concrete set of ideational conceptions realized through semantic or symbolic expressions (Smiraglia) = commonality of content between and among the various expressions of the work (FRBR’s recursive definition) = a conceptual similarity among instances of Information Object (E73) (cf. P73) (CRM) = on the whole, rather a relationship than something that “exists” (“entity”)

18. MANIFESTATION = physical embodiment of an expression of a work; all copies produced that form part of the same set are considered to be copies of the same manifestation (FRBR’s contradictory definition: a set and a physical embodiment at the same time) = a subclass of Type (E55) to which instances of Information Carrier (E73) are linked through P2 has type property, and = a subclass of Information Object (E23) and of Type (E55), and a metaclass (CRM) = on the whole, rather an assumption than a physical evidence

19. A paradox Librarians mainly catalog assumptions and, at a lesser degree, arbitrary conceptual similarities, i.e.: They mainly focus on Manifestations and, at a lesser degree, on Works… … whereas in “real life” we can only deal with Items and Expressions, i.e. instances of Information Carrier (E84) and of Information Object (E73)

20. Conclusion (1/2) This is not to blame librarians (I’m one of them…): info about Publications (Manifestations) and Works is actually vital to us This is just to highlight that Sharing the Knowledge does not mean quite the same for libraries and museums. And yet… And yet, we have to find some common ground…

21. Conclusion (2/2) … That common ground could perhaps be found in some FRBR attributes for Work/Expression that are not consistently recorded in current library practice, but that fit in well with CRM: 4.2.7. Context for the Work 4.3.10. Context for the Expression 4.3.11. Critical Response to the Expression and in a consistent documentation of relationships defined by FRBR between and among Works and Expressions This way, we might really Share the Knowledge between libraries and museums

22. FRBR attribute « Dates of Person » for a Person, or « Medium of Performance » for a (musical) Work: 1830-1886 100 10 |a Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, |d 1756-1791. |t Adagio und Allegro, |m musical clock, |n K. 594, |r F minor Musical clock actually no data elements per se, but parts of larger, conventional appellations in the context of library catalogues: 100 1_ |a Dickinson, Emily, |d 1830-1886

23. “Title proper” (attribute of a Manifestation): What hapenned [sic] on March, 72 [i.e., 27] = Inscription interpreted as Title: What hapenned on March, 72 + “Ideal” title for filing & retrieving: What happened on March, 27 “Place of publication” (attribute of a Manifestation): Caerdydd [i. e., Cardiff] = Place Name as Inscription: Caerdydd + Alternative Place Name, deemed more “comprehensible”: Cardiff