Report of the Task Force for the Review of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records–Library Reference Model (FRBR-LRM)

CC:DA/TF/FRBR-Library Reference Model/3
April 8, 2016

Report of the Task Force for the Review of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records–Library Reference Model (FRBR-LRM)

Beth Shoemaker, Chair
ALA/ALCTS/CaMMS/CC:DA/Task Force for the Review of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records – Library Reference Model (FRBR-LRM)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Report of the Task Force for the Review of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records–Library Reference Model (FRBR-LRM)

  1. Steve Kelley says:

    The report is excellent. It is very thorough and clear. I entirely agree with the arguments and critiques presented. Fantastic work by the task force.

  2. Mary Huismann says:

    Passing along feedback from Tracey Snyder (Chair, Music Library Association Cataloging and Metadata Committee):
    LRM-A3: Thank you for including my suggestion to add examples of popular music genres.

    LRM-A10: Thank you for incorporating MLA input on the naming of the “key” element.

    Non-human and fictitious entities: Thank you for advocating for a reversal of the stance on agency of these entities. I know it has also been discussed a great deal on PCC List. We have been told we are not likely to get what we want, but perhaps the reaction has been strong enough to have influence. Perhaps it would strengthen our case to refer to schema.org, which defines a person as being alive, dead, undead, or fictional, making the larger point that we would benefit from aligning with other widely used models in this regard.

    LRM-E7/E8: Thank you for including my suggested examples of Spinal Tap and Camilla and the Chickens. Perhaps it would help to add some context along the lines of “How then do we account for Spinal Tap (from the film This is Spinal Tap) or Camilla and the Chickens (from the film The Muppets) when cataloging the soundtracks for the films in which those entities are credited as performers?” Another MLA member also mentioned Gorillaz, a virtual band devised by 2 humans but consisting of 4 animated members who are fictitious.

    LRM-E10: I like the TF suggestion to add “fictitious” etc. as attributes for places, works, persons, etc.

  3. Mary Huismann says:

    And a few more comments from Tracey Snyder (Chair, MLA Cataloging and Metadata Committee):
    LRM-R5 and R6: Thank you for including my suggestion for popular music to be better represented at the work and expression levels as well as my example of Led Zeppelin as an agent for the work and expression levels for their song Communication Breakdown. If it is included as an expression, their performance of the song on Danish television could be used.

    I think it would be even more beneficial to include popular music examples at LRM-E2 and E3. The same example (Communication Breakdown) could be used. To be thorough, the full context could be included:

    E2 — composition by Page, Jones, and Bonham

    E2 — performance work by Led Zeppelin

    E2 — self-titled album by Led Zeppelin (aggregate work?)

    E3 — Led Zeppelin’s performance of the song on Danish TV

    Another possibility is Stairway to Heaven:

    E2 — composition by Page and Plant

    E2 — performance work by Led Zeppelin

    E2 — album by Led Zeppelin IV, as it is commonly known and found in reference sources (aggregate work?)

    E3 — Led Zeppelin’s performance of the song at Knebworth

    If more variety is desired, I have a wealth of non-Zeppelin ideas, so please feel free to contact me. Here are a few.

    E2 — the composition I Want to Hold Your Hand by Lennon and McCartney

    E2 — the performance work I Want to Hold Your Hand by the Beatles

    E2 — the album Abby Road by the Beatles (aggregate work?)

    E3 — the German version of I Want to Hold Your Hand (Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand)

    E2 — Joni Mitchell’s song Big Yellow Taxi (both her composition and her performance work — these can probably be equated)

    E3 — Joni Mitchell’s performance of Big Yellow Taxi at the Isle of Wight Festival

    E2 — Mary Bergin’s album of Irish traditional music, Feadóga Stáin

    E2 — the composition Walk On By by Burt Bacharach with lyrics by Hal David

    E2 — the performance work of Walk On By by Dionne Warwick

    E2 — the performance work of Walk On By by Isaac Hayes

    For more detailed ideas on modeling popular music in this matter, see http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01639374.2015.1105898 or https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/41641/Kishimoto%20Snyder-Popular%20Music%20in%20FRBR%20and%20RDA%20(Accepted%20Manuscript).pdf?sequence=2, which outlines an approach supported by FRBR-LRM’s emphasis on user needs as well as bibliographic and cultural conventions in defining works (as described in FRBR-LRM E2, pages 14-15). As one MLA member pointed out during discussion of FRBR-LRM, Otis Redding’s recorded performance of his composition Respect would not be an acceptable substitute for Aretha Franklin’s recorded performance of Respect for most users, whereas recordings by two different string quartets of a work composed by Mozart would likely satisfy a user researching that work. The same holds true for Dionne Warwick’s three-minute soul/pop single and Isaac Hayes’s 12-minute funk/soul single (Walk On By).

    I would also like to see examples such as Wayne Marshall’s Organ improvisations and/or Moses Hogan’s Didn’t my Lord deliver Daniel? from RDA 6.28.1.5.2 added to FRBR-LRM E2.

  4. Kathy Glennan says:

    Potential addition to the report:

    In LRM-A13 (Category of carrier), what is the reason behind restricting the categorization to a “general type of carrier” in the scope notes? Where does the model allow for capturing information about a more specific type of carrier (for example, audio disc vs. compact disc)?

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    Regarding representative expressions (when applicable):

    While the benefits of identifying attributes of a representative expression are clear, the same advantages would be had if these particular attributes were declared at the work level (as “original language”, etc.). Because the WEMI entities are disjoint, and not superclasses/subclasses of each other, asserting transference of attributes doesn’t fit the model well.

  6. Kathy Glennan says:

    A few comments on serials (note: not my area of expertise!):

    1. It seems to me that a serial fits better in the model as a whole/part relationship (see LRM-R20 and LRM-R32 – both mentioned in the Transition Mappings document in relation to series statements, p. 19) than as an aggregating work, although there may be aspects of both in any given serial.

    2. Overall, the explanations here describe serials as an exception to the rest of FRBR-LRM. This is exemplified by the identification of different language editions as different works, rather than as different expressions. I’m not convinced that this is the right approach.

  7. Diane Napert says:

    From Jennifer Vaughn, ARSC member
    I think the report is great. I strongly agree with the report’s comments that challenge the notion that agents (both individual and collective) must be real persons.
    I also agree that the concept of representative expression can be problematic, especially for performed music.
    Also agree that attribute of “key” has Western art music bias.
    Agree that aggregate model is problematic and not fully explained.

  8. Diane Napert says:

    Regarding p. 5 of the report : It is incongruous to include format examples (MARC, UNIMARC, etc.) in a high-level conceptual model

    While it surprised me to see format examples and perhaps it is indeed incongruous, on a practical level it helped me visualize the concept. It may help others as well.

  9. Diane Napert says:

    I agree the report is well done! Kudos to the task force for getting so much done in a short time. In general, I think the Library Reference Model is not easy to comprehend on a first pass and the use of Nomen and Res seems to move away from the use of easier to understand terms. Granted the general public doesn’t need to know the terms, but I always think about training staff. I’ve got ten C & T staff with varying degrees of experience and potential. I know I couldn’t explain this well at the moment.

  10. Diane Napert says:

    LRM-E3: The phrase “distinct constellations of signs” is ambiguous and does not convey meaning in this, or conceivably any, context

    I wondered about this wording myself. Kind of poetic, but thanks for mentioning it is hard to understand

  11. Diane Napert says:

    LRM-A10: “Key” is found to be a restrictive term focused on Western art music. We recommend renaming the attribute either “pitch structure” or “tonal system” to fully incorporate non-Western musics

    I agree, but have been mulling over whether this change would get the hoped for results (more non-Western music cataloged) One has to weigh the change in a well understood term over the potential benefits I suppose. Perhaps over time it would be successful. In the end I am leaning toward being more inclusive.

  12. Diane Napert says:

    page 53 of the IFLA Document FRBR Library Reference Model
    Example of LRM-R25
    The 1965 recording of a performance of Anton Bruckner’s
    Symphony No. 2 in C minor by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra
    directed by Herman Scherchen was “derived from” [quotes mine] the particular score of Anton Bruckner’s Symphony No. 2 in C minor found in
    the 1892 edition (Doblinger) supervised by Cyrill Hynais with
    revisions by Bruckner

    With reference to the above, I wondered how often this was going to be applicable and whether the example could be better used. It does state that in many cases the information is not known. One would have to get the information from the liner notes I presume.
    I can think of a couple of examples, but only in the context of pairing some of our archival material with sound recordings. Yale has some of Robert Shaw’s marked scores and might be able to link those to particular recordings. I am currently working on some unpublished Cole Porter material and could likely link those recordings to scores.
    Perhaps give an example of “derived into” instead since none is given

  13. Larisa Walsh says:

    I agree that the report is very clear and well written, and comments are excellent. I especially appreciate a comment on the LRM-E9: Nomen seems to fit an “Attribute” category rather than an “Entity” category. Explanations and examples for a Nomen given in the Report are not in line with the model definition of an entity as a category of a conceptual object (chapter 4 of the FRBR-LRM report), and I agree with the task force that a clarification on this is desired.

  14. Karen Stafford says:

    The Task Force review is very clear and thorough. The Cataloging Advisory Committee of the Art Libraries Society of North America thanks CC:DA for putting forth this report. We endorse the task force’s recommendations and observations, with a few exceptions noted below. We applaud the forceful defense of the validity of fictional agents, places, works, etc.

    Table 4.2: “Generally, we would like to see more non-print examples in LRM-E1-E5”
    Agreed. The model would benefit from the inclusion of more art works and visual materials in general at the level of theoretical considerations as well as in the form of examples for all WEMI entities and relationships. For example, it would be instructive to learn how the model envisions the concepts and the examples for Rodin’s The Thinker (currently an example for LRM-E2) at the expression, manifestation and item levels. In a similar manner, it would be useful to lay out the work, expression, and item concepts and examples for the Lindisfarne Gospels (example under LRM-R7 and R9).

    Table 4.2: “The entity name Res was found to be problematic in English, …”
    Agreed. The use of “nomens” as plural form of “nomen” also raises questions.

    Section 5.4: Representativity
    We welcome the introduction of the concept of representativity. We see it as providing a way to represent more accurately relationships between art works and between art works and their reproductions. We agree that in many cases it will not be possible to simply choose between yes or no, since several different attributes may be used as criteria for representativity. We also agree that details related to application and assignment of particular attributes are best left to community definition.

    Suggested edits, Table 3.2: “The language of the Find comments …”
    The suggested rewording is exactly the same as the original text.

  15. Mary Anne Dyer says:

    I also feel the report is very well done and I agree with the task force’s critique. I especially support their recommendations for clarification and changes in terminology and examples, and the need for inclusion of non-human and fictitious entities, and imaginary, legendary or fictional places.

Leave a Reply