FRBR, Twenty Years On

Abstract

The article analyzes the conceptual model of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) as a general model of bibliographic data and description that can be interpreted, as needed, to serve the needs of various communities. This is illustrated with descriptions of five different implementations based on the concepts in FRBR: FRBR_ER (entity-relation), FRBR_OO (object oriented), FRBRCore (FRBR entities as linked data), (FRBR entities within the commerce model), and FaBiO (FRBR indecs as a basis for academic document types). The author argues that variant models show the strength of the FRBR concepts, and should be encouraged.

KEYWORDS:

• data models
• entity-relationship modeling
• use studies
• metadata
• bibliographic data
• interoperability

Notes

1. Ronald J. Murray, “The FRBR-Theoretic Library: The Role of Conceptual Data Modeling in Cultural Heritage Information System Design” (paper presented at iPRES 2008. London, September 29–30, 2008), http://www.bl.uk/ipres2008/presentations_day1/26_Murray.pdf

2. Barbara B. Tillett, “IFLA Study on the Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records: Theoretical and Practical Foundations” (paper presented at the 60th IFLA General Conference, Havana, Cuba, August 21–27, 1994), http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-tilb.htm

3. Olivia M. A. Madison, “The Origins of the IFLA Study on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records,” in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): Hype or Cure-All? (New York: Haworth Information Press, 2005), 35–36.

4. Richard Perkinson. Data Analysis: The Key to Data Base Design (Wellesley, MA: QED Information Sciences, 1984).

5. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Final Report as amended and corrected through February 2009: 9, http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf

6. IFLA Study Group on FRBR, 9.

7. Based on: Graeme C. Simsion and Graham C. Witt, Data Modeling Essentials (Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann, 2005).

8. Gordon Dunsire, “Resource and Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item,” amended October 6, 2013, http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/isbd/OtherDocumentation/resource-wemi.pdf

9. IFLA Study Group on FRBR, 13.

10. Object Management Group, “Unified Modeling Language™ (UML®) Resource Page,” http://uml.org/ (accessed March 26, 2014).

11. Barbara Tillett, “FRBR and Cataloging for the Future,” in FRBR: Hype or Cure-All? (New York: Haworth Information Press, 2005), 197.

12. Library of Congress, “Bibliographic Framework Initiative,” http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/ (accessed March 26, 2014).

13. “About the FRBR Review Group,” http://www.ifla.org/about-the-frbr-review-group (accessed July 3, 2014).

14. Robert L. Maxwell, FRBR: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago: American Library Association, 2008).

15. “The FRBR Family of Models,” ed. Richard P. Smiraglia, special issue, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 50, nos. 5–7 (2012).

16. Patrick Le Boeuf, “FRBR: Hype or Cure-All? Introduction,” in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Hype or Cure-All? (New York: Haworth Information Press, 2005), 1–13.

17. World Wide Web Consortium, “Resource Description Framework (RDF),” http://www.w3.org/RDF/ (accessed March 26, 2014).

18. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, FRBR Study Group, “The FRBRer Model,” http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/ (accessed July 2, 2014).

19. “Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV),” http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/ (accessed March 26, 2014).

20. David Shotton and Silvio Peroni, “FaBiO: FRBR Aligned Bibliographic Ontology,” http://purl.org/spar/Fabio (accessed March 26, 2014).

21. “SPAR—Semantic Publishing and Referencing,” http://sempublishing.sourceforge.net/ (accessed March 26, 2014).

22. International Council of Museums, “The CIDOC CRM,” http://cidoc-crm.org/ (accessed March 27, 2014).

23. “Working Group on FRBR/CRM Dialog,” http://www.ifla.org/node/928 (accessed March 27, 2014).

24. International Working Group on FRBR and CIDOC CRM Harmonisation, “FRBR, object-oriented definition and mapping from FRBRer, FRAD and FRSAD,” version 2.0. May 2013, 13.

25. Ed O’Neill, Anders Cato, Paula Goossens, Judy Kuhagen, Barbara Tillett, Carol Van Nuys, and Maja Žumer, “Final Report of the Working Group on Aggregates,” http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbrrg/AggregatesFinalReport.pdf (accessed March 27, 2014).

26. Godfrey Rust and Mark Bide, “The <indecs> metadata framework: Principles, Model and Data Dictionary” (June 2000), http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf (accessed March 27, 2014).

27. Ibid., 27–28.

28. “The concept of what constitutes a work and where the line of demarcation lies between one work and another may in fact be viewed differently from one culture to another. Consequently the bibliographic conventions established by various cultures or national groups may differ in terms of the criteria they use for determining the boundaries between one work and another.” IFLA Study Group on FRBR, 17.