Afterword
There is no question that FRBR represents a great leap
forward in the theory of bibliographic description. It addresses the “work
question” that so troubled some of the great minds of library cataloging in the
twentieth century. It provides a view of the “bibliographic family” through its
recognition of the importance of the relationships that exist between created
cultural objects. It has already resulted in vocabularies that make it possible
to discuss the complex nature of the resources that libraries and archives
gather and manage.
As a conceptual model, FRBR has informed a new era of library
cataloging rules. It has been integrated into the cataloging workflow to a
certain extent. FRBR has also inspired some non-library efforts, and those have
given us interesting insight into the potential of the conceptual model to
support a variety of different needs.
The FRBR model, with its emphasis on bibliographic relationships,
has the potential to restore context that was once managed through alphabetical
collocation to the catalog. In fact, the use of a Semantic Web technology with
a model of entities and relations could be a substantial improvement in this
area, because the context that brings bibliographic units together can be made
explicit: “translation of,” “film adaptation of,” “commentary on.” This, of
course, could be achieved with or without FRBR, but because the conceptual
model articulates the relationships, and the relationships are included in the
recent cataloging rules, it makes sense to begin with FRBR and evolve from
there.
However, the gap between the goals developed at the Stockholm
meeting in 1991 and the result of the FRBR Study Group’s analysis is striking.
FRBR defined only a small set of functional requirements, at a very broad
level: find, identify, select, and obtain. The study would have been more
convincing as a functional analysis if those four tasks had been further
analyzed and had been the focus of the primary content of the study report.
Instead, from my reading of the FRBR Final Report, it appears that the
entity-relation analysis of bibliographic data took precedence over user tasks
in the work of the FRBR Study Group.
The report’s emphasis on the entity-relation model, and the
inclusion of three simple diagrams in the report, is mostly likely the reason
for the widespread belief that the FRBR Final Report defines a technology
standard for bibliographic data. Although technology solutions can and have
been developed around the FRBR conceptual model, no technology solution is
presented in the FRBR Final Report. Even more importantly, there is nothing in
the FRBR Final Report to suggest that there is one, and only one, technology
possible based on the FRBR concepts. This is borne out by the examples we have
of FRBR-based data models, each of which interprets the FRBR concepts to serve
their particular set of needs. The strength of FRBR as a conceptual model is
that it can support a variety of interpretations. FRBR can be a useful model
for future developments, but it is a starting point, not a finalized product.
There is, of course, a need for technology standards that can be
used to convey information about bibliographic resources. I say “standards” in
the plural, because it is undeniable that the characteristics of libraries and
their users have such a wide range of functions and needs that no one solution
could possibly serve all. Well-designed standards create a minimum level of
compliance that allows interoperability while permitting necessary variation to
take place. A good example of this is the light bulb: with a defined standard
base for the light bulb we have been able to move from incandescent to
fluorescent and now to LED bulbs, all the time keeping our same lighting
fixtures.
We must do the same for bibliographic data so that we can address the
need for variation in the different approaches between books and non-books, and
between the requirements of the library catalog versus the use of bibliographic
data in a commercial model or in a publication workflow.
Standardization on a single over-arching bibliographic model is
not a reasonable solution. Instead, we should ask: what are the minimum
necessary points of compliance that will make interoperability possible between
these various uses and users? Interoperability needs to take place around the
information and meaning carried in the bibliographic description, not in the
structure that carries the data. What must be allowed to vary in our case is
the technology that carries that message, because it is the rapid rate of
technology change that we must be able to adjust to in the least disruptive way
possible. The value of a strong conceptual model is that it is not dependent on
any single technology.
It is now nearly twenty years since the Final Report of the FRBR
Study Group was published. The FRBR concept has been expanded to include related
standards for subjects and for persons, corporate bodies, and families. There
is an ongoing Working Group for Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records that is part of the Cataloguing Section of the International Federation
of Library Associations. It is taken for granted by many that future library
systems will carry data organized around the FRBR groups of entities. I hope
that the analysis that I have provided here encourages critical thinking about
some of our assumptions, and fosters the kind of dialog that is needed for us
to move fruitfully from broad concepts to an integrative approach for
bibliographic data.
From FRBR, Before and After, by Karen Coyle. Published by ALA Editions, 2015
FRBR, Before and After by Karen Coyle is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
