FRBR: Challenges for Implementation in AACR2, With Some Attention to Nonbook Materials

Allyson CarlyleInformation School

University of WashingtonSeattle, WA, USA

IFLA FRBR Review Group Conference on: FRBR in 21st Century Catalogs: An Invitational Workshop

©2005 Allyson Carlyle

Overviewo Introduction o Challenges to implementing FRBR:

o Work challengeso Expression challengeso Manifestation challenges

o Conclusion

Challenges, Summarizedo Fully incorporating the “work” entity into

the rules – at last!o Accommodating a relatively new entity,

“expression”, into the rules.o Addressing weaknesses in the existing

rules, particularly those in Chapter 21.

Work Challengeso FRBR defines work as “a distinct

intellectual or artistic creation”, but AACR2 still lacks a definition for it, although the rules make use of the term.

o Need to incorporate a definition of work into the rules.

o Need to explicitly link the selection of main entry citation (work citation?) to the identification of a work for users.

Boundarieso One of the challenges in implementing

FRBR is to decide when you have a new (related) work and when you have an expression of an existing work.

o Do we want to re-examine the current boundaries as implemented in current cataloging practice and in AACR2?

Related Work or Expression?o Pride and Prejudice, an exercise for

beginning cataloging – do the movie and the book represent the same work?

o In presentations and articles about FRBR, a frequent example I’ve seen for an expression of a work is a movie version.

o If FRBR were interpreted according to existing rules, these versions would not be treated as expressions.

Rule Revision Challengeso As Martha M. Yee noted in her 1982 article

“Integration of Nonbook Materials in AACR2”, there is no general rule for entry for works of mixed responsibility in AACR2.

o With the incorporation of FRBR into the rules, we have an excellent opportunity to write such a rule.

o This rule would establish general work boundaries for works of mixed responsibility.

Serialso Examples:

o Cleveland Plain Dealero Serials Librarian

o A challenge still exists to incorporate serials into FRBR’s document model comfortably.

Whole/part Challengeso How are Serials Librarian and Cleveland

Plain Dealer works? Viewing from the whole/part perspective may help.

o Beethoven’s 9th, another exercise for beginning cataloging – is the Ode to Joy a work or is it an expression of a work?

o Cataloging, especially cataloging nonbook items, is frequently engaged in describing wholes with parts and parts of wholes.

Easy Wholes?o Often, a whole is what we think of as

what is conjured up by the FRBR definition of work – “a distinct intellectual or artistic creation.”

o In current practice, when we catalog a part of such a whole, we sometimes catalog it as an expression of a work, and sometimes as a separate work.

Collectionso Collections of previously existing works do

not, perhaps, fit the FRBR work definition as “distinct creation” quite so well.

Back to serialso What type of work are serial works and

collections such as anthologies? o Ed Jones noted that the FRBR definition

of work as a distinct creation is difficult to apply to serials – or, at least, it is difficult for some serials librarians to accept.

Response – Consider adopting two definitions of work?o Patrick Le Bœuf, referring to musical

works, proposes that we consider works to be of two types:o bona fide (those that fit the distinct creation

definition) or o fiat (those that we declare to be works: e.g.,

collections and parts published separately).

o If we accepted this proposal, part of Ed’s challenge to FRBR would be met.

Advantageso Advantages to explicitly identifying and

defining two types of works include:o answering the objections of serials catalogers

to the FRBR model (?);o giving us the opportunity to explore different

types of rules for each type of work;o providing a clearer rationale for existing rules

(e.g., rule 21.2, “Changes in Titles Proper”)o making teaching Chapter 21 easier.

Expression Challengeso Incorporating the expression entity into

cataloging rules and practice may be the most difficult part of implementing FRBR because:o Expressions have been incorporated into

cataloging practice inconsistently before now;o New cataloging data will have to be recorded

to identify them;o The expression entity is difficult to understand,

making implementation potentially difficult and actual cataloging practice inconsistent.

Boundaries, againo How will we determine when we have an

expression vs. when we will have a new work?

A Serials Exampleo Currently, we create a new serial record

with a new main entry citation (and thus, essentially, declare a new serial work) when we add “Mid-Atlantic ed.” as qualifier to a serial title.

o Will we make some of these differences into expression level differences, instead of work differences?

o If we do, how will it be done?

Identification of Expressionso AACR2 is divided into two parts,

description and access.o Required cataloging data identifying

expressions appears in both parts of AACR2.

Expression Identifiers in Part Io In AACR2 descriptive chapters, information

about expressions is included in these places (among others):o area 3 details such as scale for cartographic

materials;o much of what is in the second element of the

physical description area, for example, “illustrated” for books, or “black and white” for moving image and graphic materials.

Expression Identifiers in Part IIo In Part II, some uniform title additions

identify expressions, for example:o version information for music and other types

of materials;o language.

Other Inconsistencieso Sometimes information that is in the same

rule in AACR2 identifies different FRBR entities, for example, “Other physical details” in Area 5.

o Sometimes this element identifies expression information (e.g., black and white for a moving image);

o but sometimes it identifies manifestation information, e.g., “double-sided” to describe a flip chart.

Lack of Expression Cataloging Datao Some information necessary for identifying

expressions simply isn’t required in AACR2, for example:o translator nameso illustrator names

Transcription and Identificationo The multiple functions (access and

selection) of transcribed information, some of which identifies expression information, should be recognized.

o The clearest way to differentiate between these functions is to create separate fields for the same information (e.g., 4XX & 8XX fields).

o But, this kind of duplication in a record is problematic.

Manifestation Challenge - Boundarieso Some features that now clearly indicate

editions of the same work may identify either manifestations or expressions – how will we decide? A rule for every case?

o For example, Braille – new expression or new manifestation?

Taste & Judgmento Need to balance flexible, condition-based

rules that rely ultimately on taste & judgment, with cataloger desires to have things spelled out.

o Need to indicate specific reasons for specific rules clearly as well as the principles behind them.

The Ultimate FRBR Challenge for AACR2: How Much Change Can We Handle?

o If we, in FRBRizing AACR2, address even some of the issues I’ve raised (and I’m sure there are many others), it is possible that we are looking at significant changes, both to AACR2 and possibly to MARC.

o Are we ready?

Finally, the User Challengeo Need for user research to:

o confirm the need for changes;o indicate if differences in perception exist from

the document model described by FRBR;o guide the construction of displays that

facilitate the objectives of the catalog.