FRBR and RDF

Yesterday I published an RDF schema for FRBR. This is a collaboration with Richard Newman, based on work he started last year and incorporates ideas from Leigh Dodds and Bruce D’Arcus.

Now you might be thinking that we’ve just written a schema describing those cute furry creatures that whistle and toot when you stroke them. Sadly no. FRBR stands for Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and is a report issued by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. It describes a high level conceptual model of creative works and how they are represented in the real world. Bet you wish we had done the furry alien thing.

In the library and cataloguing world, FRBR is a big deal. It standardises a set of terms and relationships that are essential to any cataloguer. The central concept is that of the Work which is a distinct intellectual or atistic creation. A work is an abstract notion and is completely intangible. You can talk about a work but you can’t physically touch it. When someone conceives of a new work they typically try to express its ideas in some way. A composer might have the notion of a musical composition in mind, and they could express it by writing notes on a stave, humming into a microphone or playing it on a piano. These are Expressions, another core concept in FRBR. A Work is realized through Expressions. An Expression comprises the specific words, symbols or notes that are used to express the Work. Sometimes the same Work is expressed in different words, think of all the different variations of the story of Rumpelstiltskin that you might have read. These are all different Expressions of the same Work. An Expression is usually published and may have several different but related editions. These are called Manifestations. Whenever a particular Expression of a Work is reprinted or reissued without materially changing its content, then it becomes a new Manifestation. The final core concept of FRBR is that of the Item. An Item is an actual physical copy of a particular Manifestation. That Shrek DVD on my shelf is a different physical Item to the one on your shelf, but they are both examples of a specific Manifestation – they look identical when we compare them but they are physically distinct.

That’s not all there is to FRBR, it also describes people, places, objects and events, but these take a supporting role for the central concepts of Work, Expression, Manifestation and Item. The FRBR report is freely available and quite readable. Our RDF expression of that work is less readable at the moment – it has very little prose and a lot of raw data – but we’re working on it and we’d love to have feedback on all aspects of it.

Here are some examples that I’ve come up with based on my understanding of FRBR that might help:

Lord of the Rings is a Work conceived by J.R.R. Tolkien. The primary Expression of that Work is the book that he wrote. This had several Manifestations – the original publication, a single volume edition, multiple reprints. I have a tattered copy in my book collection – this is one Item. A different Expression of the same Work is the screenplay co-written by Peter Jackson. This had several Manifestations – scripts for the actors, production instructions etc. The films themselves were further Expressions of the same Work. The theatre version and the extended versions were different Expressions with their own Manifestations onto VHS and DVD. I have several of these Items on my shelf.

This one I’m less sure about but I think it could be significant. In the Web Architecture what we call a Resource, FRBR would call a Work. Each Representation of that Resource is an Expression of that Work. In other words the HTML and XML versions of a particular page are different Expressions of that page. When a Web browser requests a particular Expression it gets a snapshot of it at a point in time, this is a Manifestation. The Web Architecture doesn’t name this explicitly but it is implicit in some of the HTTP negotiation that goes on around character sets and ranges. The actual bytes that are transmitted and end up on my hard disk are the Item relating to this Manifestation.

This is why I’m pretty excited to have the opportunity to work on something like FRBR. I think it’s going to be a core referent for many other schemas and will enable a base level of common vocabulary between disparate systems. I want to see MusicBrainz, AudioScrobbler, IMDB, Creative Commons, Amazon and so many others using it to describe their catalogues and metadata in a feely interchangeable fashion!

Finally, if you managed to get through all that, treat yourself to some pictures of cute furry aliens. All together now, ahhhhh.

About Ian Davis

British entrepreneur and CEO of Kasabi. Primary interests are open data, the semantic web and decentralization.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to FRBR and RDF

  1. Richard Newman » holygoat.co.uk » blog says:

    Many days, no blog; FRBRFor months now I’ve been discussing bibliographic representations with Bruce D’Arcus, who has been developing citeproc and looking into RDF. A little later Ian Davis joined the fray, and back at the start of July I cleaned up and sent to him my FRBR …

  2. The FRBR Blog says:

    Expression of FRBR Concepts in RDFIan Davis and Richard Newman are using RDF to show the relationships in FRBR:Expression of Core FRBR Concepts in RDFExpression of Extended FRBR Concepts in RDFIan Davis posted an explanation on his blog:This one I’m less sure abou…

  3. Zoltan Tomory says:

    Actually, you touch on a thorny point with your LOTR example. In my understanding of FRBR, the films based upon Lord of the Rings would be considered separate works because the screenplay was written by others than Tolkien. Clearly another level of abstraction is needed in their model because there is a level of “Lord of the Rings”-ness that present cataloging rules do not generalize to, that FRBR does not cover, which we all recognize.Also, take care how you use Expression. It’s a little wierder than you let on & I’m not altogether comfortable with the way it is used by the library crowd even. It sort of carries over some organization for dividing things by stuff like language and the type of material with a lot of fine detail of physical details of format loaded on. So yeah, your LOTR is on paper like you said, but it is also in English and that belongs there too.Where you will bump up against Manifestation it is stuff from the title page(s) and physical description of an actual edition. Most of the stuff about your dusty copy of v.1 is Manifestation.The signature you put in the inside cover and your description of the condition are Item. This did not seem quite clear from your description.FRBR is still a work in progress.So are the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules for that matter.If you want a more conservative example, take different editions of the same work. The need probably arises more with nonfiction where the title may often need to be revised.I am unfamiliar with RDF and how it may help FRBR or MARC records.Zoltan Tomory MLS

  4. darcusblog » Blog Archive » FRBR in RDF says:

    [...] Ian Davis—technical lead for the Silkworm project at Talis—and Richard Newman have announced the first public draft of an RDF OWL schema for the FRBR. It’s the first publicl [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s