Understanding FRBR As a Conceptual Model
The Fuctional Requirements
for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is a conceptual model. Conceptual mode
ls can
be used to explain ideas and theories through representation. To use conceptual
models, one must first operationalize the elements of the model.
Operationalizing makes it so that we can observe and measure the output of an
abstract element. For example, when looking at something like happiness, you
can operationalize that by counting how many times someone smiles or how many
times they say somet
hing positive. The elements of FRBR that need to be
operationally defined are “work”, “expression”, “material”, and “item”. To
explain, a “work” is the original publication by an author, an “expression” is
a remake or artistic realization of a work, a manifestation is the physical
format of an expression, and an item is the single copy of that manifestation. The
difference that this model makes in cataloging is that bibliographic records
usually just describe the single item that you are looking for, but FRBR makes
it so that bibliographic records contain information relating the item back to
other expressions and manifestations, making FRBR an entity-relationship model.
An example of this can be if I was looking for the children’s book Charlotte’s
Web, instead of just getting one record for Charlotte’s Web by E.B. White, I
would find multiple records, representing translations in different languages,
a modern retelling, movie versions, a graphic novel version, etc… all of the
different expressions and manifestations of Charlotte’s Web by E.B. White that
may have different titles, authors, and formats, but they are all related back
to the original work of Charlotte’s Web. This is the power of FRBR. Evaluating
conceptual models can be difficult, but you must look at the goal of the model
to determine if it is good or not. The goal of FRBR is to provide a framework
that would facilitate a common understanding of what a bibliographic record
provides information about. One of the cons of FRBR is the abstractness of the
elements it uses. There are no concrete definitions or qualifications for “works”,
“expressions”, and the rest. This makes it difficult for us to reach a mutual understanding
and complete agreement on the correct way to catalog items using the FRBR
model. What make be an expression of a work to one person may be considered a
totally different work by a colleague. The entities used in FRBR are not
exactly new to the cataloging world and FRBR is relatable to many past models,
what is new about FRBR is that is brings relationships between different items
into account when cataloging, making catalogs and databases more efficient than
ever.
ls can
be used to explain ideas and theories through representation. To use conceptual
models, one must first operationalize the elements of the model.
Operationalizing makes it so that we can observe and measure the output of an
abstract element. For example, when looking at something like happiness, you
can operationalize that by counting how many times someone smiles or how many
times they say something positive. The elements of FRBR that need to be
operationally defined are “work”, “expression”, “material”, and “item”. To
explain, a “work” is the original publication by an author, an “expression” is
a remake or artistic realization of a work, a manifestation is the physical
format of an expression, and an item is the single copy of that manifestation. The
difference that this model makes in cataloging is that bibliographic records
usually just describe the single item that you are looking for, but FRBR makes
it so that bibliographic records contain information relating the item back to
other expressions and manifestations, making FRBR an entity-relationship model.
An example of this can be if I was looking for the children’s book Charlotte’s
Web, instead of just getting one record for Charlotte’s Web by E.B. White, I
would find multiple records, representing translations in different languages,
a modern retelling, movie versions, a graphic novel version, etc… all of the
different expressions and manifestations of Charlotte’s Web by E.B. White that
may have different titles, authors, and formats, but they are all related back
to the original work of Charlotte’s Web. This is the power of FRBR. Evaluating
conceptual models can be difficult, but you must look at the goal of the model
to determine if it is good or not. The goal of FRBR is to provide a framework
that would facilitate a common understanding of what a bibliographic record
provides information about. One of the cons of FRBR is the abstractness of the
elements it uses. There are no concrete definitions or qualifications for “works”,
“expressions”, and the rest. This makes it difficult for us to reach a mutual understanding
and complete agreement on the correct way to catalog items using the FRBR
model. What make be an expression of a work to one person may be considered a
totally different work by a colleague. The entities used in FRBR are not
exactly new to the cataloging world and FRBR is relatable to many past models,
what is new about FRBR is that is brings relationships between different items
into account when cataloging, making catalogs and databases more efficient than
ever.
Reference
Carlyle,
A. (2006). Understanding FRBR as a conceptual model: FRBR and the bibliographic
universe. Library Resources & Technical Services
50:264-73.
No comments:
Post a Comment