AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to millions of articles from top publications available through your library.
The report from the IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) recommended a new approach to cataloging based on an entity-relationship model. This study examined a single work, The Expedition of Humphry Clinker, to determine benefits and drawbacks associated with creating such an entity-relationship model. Humphry Clinker was selected for several reasons--it has been previously studied, it is widely held, and it is a work of mid-level complexity. In addition to analyzing the bibliographic records, many books were examined to ensure the accuracy of the resulting FRBR model. While it was possible to identify works and manifestations, identifying expressions was problematic. Reliable identification of expressions frequently necessitated the examination of the books themselves. Enhanced manifestation records where the roles of editors, illustrators, translators, and other contributors are explicitly identified may be a viable alternative to expressions. For Humphry Clinker, the enhanced record approach avoids the problem of identifying expressions while providing similar functionality. With the enhanced manifestation record, the three remaining entity-relationship structures--works, manifestations, and items--the FRBR model provides a powerful means, to improve bibliographic organization and navigation.
The report from the IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) includes a recommendation for a fundamentally new approach to cataloging (IFLA 1998, 13). It proposes an entity-relationship model, with four primary entities--work, expression, manifestation, and item--representing the products of intellectual or artistic endeavor. This shift in cataloging focus requires not simply describing the item in hand but also describing how the item relates to other members of its bibliographic family. La Boeuf recognizes that FRBR "is likely to induce profound changes in cataloguers' landscape" (2001, 15).
The FRBR model defines three distinct groups of entities (IFLA 1998, 12):
1. The products of intellectual or artistic endeavor (a publication)
2. Those responsible for the intellectual or artistic content (person or corporate body)
3. Those that serve as the subjects on intellectual or artistic endeavor (concept, object, event, and place)
This study focuses on the Group 1 entities. While these entities represent only one aspect of FRBR, they are the foundation of the model.
The FRBR model proposes four entities in Group 1: works, expressions, manifestations, and items. Figure 1, adapted from the corresponding figure in the IFLA report, illustrates the relationships between these four entities (IFLA 1998). Current cataloging practice focuses on a single bibliographic unit: the physical manifestation. The FRBR model, by contrast, proposes this four-level hierarchical bibliographic structure. Tillett (2001, 31) points out that, with the entity-relationship cataloging model, "The opportunity exists to move beyond the current 'record' structure and beyond relational and even the current object-oriented databases." However, the FRBR model requires that the bibliographic items be analyzed in greater detail to relate them to the other members of the work.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The four Group 1 entities represent two different aspects of user interest, the intellectual endeavor and the physical manifestation. The IFLA report (IFLA 1998, 12) defined each of the entities: "Work (a distinct intellectual or artistic creation) and expression (the intellectual or artistic realization of a work) reflect intellectual or artistic content. Manifestation (the physical embodiment of an expression of a work) and item (a single exemplar of a manifestation) reflect physical form."
None of the four FRBR entities are new--most have been discussed in the literature for years. More than 40 years ago, Verona (1959, 79) defined three objectives of the catalog as:
* the rapid location of a particular book [manifestation];
* the provision of information concerning all editions, translations, etc. [expressions] of a given work as far as they exist in the library; and
* the provision of information concerning all works by a given author as far as they exist in the library.
Four years later, Lubetzky (1963) and Verona (1963) discussed these objectives in detail, generally agreeing that using the manifestation as the basic entity best served the first objective, but using the work as the basic entity best serves the second objective. Since the card catalog could not support a hierarchical model, the selection of the basic entity for cataloging was an either/or decision. Most cataloging codes, including AACR, chose the manifestation as the basic bibliographic unit.
Since the Lubetzky and Verona discussion, technology has changed dramatically, with the online catalog replacing the card catalog. The online catalog does not have the same limitations and, thus, it is no longer an either/or choice of bibliographic unit. Online catalogs can support hierarchical models, thereby removing the technical barriers to implementation of an entity-relationship model such as that proposed in the FRBR model.
The IFLA report stresses that its suggested entity-relationship model is conceptual and "does not presume to be the last word on the issues it addresses" (IFLA 1998, 5). As such the discussion herein of the basic entities, while based on the FRBR model, also is heavily influenced by the other studies. Smiraglia (2001) provides a detailed review of this literature, and compares and contrasts the terminology and definitions.
A work is a product of the intellectual or artistic activity by a person, a group, or a corporate body that is identified by a normalized title and/or name. The FRBR report stresses that a work is an abstract entity, and recognizes that "the line of demarcation which lies between one work and another" is not unambiguous (IFLA 1998, 16). Modifications involving a significant degree of independent intellectual effort, such as paraphrases, rewritings, adaptations, parodies, abstracts, digests, and summaries, are considered to be different works.
In the literature, the term work is frequently used interchangeably with title. The work has received limited recognition in cataloging codes, and the uniform title is commonly used to identify manifestations of a work. It is often argued that the hypothetical "typical user" thinks in terms of titles, requesting, for example, The Expedition of Humphry Clinker rather than a particular edition of that work. Although the concept of work is old, finding an acceptable definition has proven elusive. Svenonius (2000, 35) argues, "critical as it is in organizing information, the concept of work has never been satisfactorily defined."
An expression is the "realization of a work in the form of alphanumeric, musical, or choreographic notation, sound, image, object, movement, or any combinations of such forms" (IFLA 1998, 18). Like works, expressions are abstract entities: There is no physical referent for an expression. The boundaries of an expression are defined to exclude aspects of physical form such as typeface or page layout. The terms text and edition are commonly used to describe …