**3.2 Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR)**

Published in 1998 by the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), the final draft of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records provided a radical re-conception of bibliographic description. In essence, FRBR is an entity-relation model which is composed of four primary classes (work, expression, manifestation, and item) that separate the intellectual content of resources from various aspects of their physical properties, resulting in a new emphasis on the component pieces of bibliographic data rather than the bibliographic record as a whole [15]. As BIBFRAME, with its three primary entity classes (work and instance and tem), is related, at least superficially to FRBR, and considering the likelihood of FRBR's international acceptance as the standard model of bibliographic description, it is useful to compare the two models to determine the degree of compatibility and potential interoperability.

At least on the surface, BIBFRAME and FRBR appear to be closely related. Both models employ the entity-relation approach to bibliographic description and divide the bibliographic record into component pieces which are attached as attributes to entities. As noted, FRBR defines four primary entities for bibliographic description. These are as follows:


As can be seen, the FRBR main entities represent a hierarchical movement from abstraction to specificity of a particular information resource [17]. In a similar fashion, BIBFRAME is constructed of entities in a hierarchical fashion, but instead of FRBR's four levels, BIBFRAME defines three [4]:

1.**Work**: "a resource reflecting a conceptual essence of the cataloged resource"

2.**Instance**: "a material embodiment of a work"

3.**Item**: "an actual copy (physical or electronic) of an instance"

Thus, although BIBFRAME only uses three main entity classes, there is still the same movement from abstraction to specificity as represented in the FRBR

**9**

*BIBFRAME Linked Data: A Conceptual Study on the Prevailing Content Standards and Data…*

hierarchy. Nevertheless, the lack of conformance to the FRBR hierarchy has resulted in much discussion, and, perhaps, even some confusion about how BIBFRAME relates to FRBR. For instance, there appears to be some disagreement in the literature regarding the exact relationship between BIBFRAME and FRBR entities, especially with regard to how the BIBFRAME entities may represent conflations of FRBR entities. Although a number of researchers espouse a correspondence between the BIBFRAME work entity and the FRBR entities work and expression [13, 15, 16, 19], at least one researcher sees a correspondence only between BIBFRAME Work and FRBR Work [20]. Similarly, it appears that most researchers see a correspondence between BIBFRAME instance and FRBR manifestation entities [13, 15, 19], while others see a correspondence between BIBFRAME instance

Perhaps some of the difficulty of mapping BIBFRAME to FRBR lies in the basic ambiguity of the meaning of the respective concepts. For instance, as is noted by IFLA, the FRBR concept of work is an abstraction, meaning that it is hard to define its "precise boundaries" and that the divisions between works and between works and expressions may in fact be culturally dependent [18]. Furthermore, as other researchers have noted, efforts at operationalizing the concept of work have led to at least two different conceptions of the concept. For instance, some have argued that a work can be conceived as the intellectual content of an endeavor with no "assumptions about how it is physically realized," while, from a different point of view, a work can be conceived as the sum of all common attributes (author, title, etc.) from a set of manifestations [17]. Perhaps complicating the matter is fact that neither BIBFRAME's nor FRBR's hierarchy constitutes a definable bibliographic whole. For instance, although FRBR's entities are organized hierarchically, and are often pictured within a box, there is no single concept to which this hierarchy relates [19]. The need for a kind of super-entity has been noted well in the literature [19]. It would seem that these questions regarding FRBR are equally applicable to BIBFRAME since BIBFRAME does not include a super-entity that encapsulates the work and instance entities. Thus, it appears that there may still be some serious conceptual difficulties that need to be overcome if BIBFRAME, as an entity-relation

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91849*

and FRBR manifestation and expression [20].

model, is to be a viable framework for bibliographic description.

possibilities of BIBFRAME working with other models.

**3.3 Resource description and access (RDA)**

Nevertheless, because BIBFRAME appears to be a simplified version of FRBR, perhaps some of the conceptual difficulties regarding FRBR will not negatively affect BIBFRAME as much. For instance, perhaps BIBFRAME's conflation of FRBR's work and expression concepts is useful since it is sometimes difficult to determine the boundaries between a work and its expression. However, since the BIBFRAME initiative has suggested that its model is agnostic, meaning that it can be applied to any model, it must be able to be mapped clearly to other models if it is to foster interoperability. Yet, as one researcher notes, to make the model completely agnostic may be unrealistic, since to be perfectly interoperable, both models require almost equivalent semantics and granularity, a situation which would suggest the redundancy of one of the models [2]. This does not seem to be the case between FRBR and BIBFRAME, which means that the initiative may need to re-examine the

BIBFRAME is designed to be content standard agnostic, meaning that the model does not include requirements or specifications for the use of any particular content standard for bibliographic description. In fact, per the initiative, BIBFRAME is intentionally underspecified so that any content standard may be applied successfully within the context of the model, including those that have yet to be developed [4].

### *BIBFRAME Linked Data: A Conceptual Study on the Prevailing Content Standards and Data… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91849*

hierarchy. Nevertheless, the lack of conformance to the FRBR hierarchy has resulted in much discussion, and, perhaps, even some confusion about how BIBFRAME relates to FRBR. For instance, there appears to be some disagreement in the literature regarding the exact relationship between BIBFRAME and FRBR entities, especially with regard to how the BIBFRAME entities may represent conflations of FRBR entities. Although a number of researchers espouse a correspondence between the BIBFRAME work entity and the FRBR entities work and expression [13, 15, 16, 19], at least one researcher sees a correspondence only between BIBFRAME Work and FRBR Work [20]. Similarly, it appears that most researchers see a correspondence between BIBFRAME instance and FRBR manifestation entities [13, 15, 19], while others see a correspondence between BIBFRAME instance and FRBR manifestation and expression [20].

Perhaps some of the difficulty of mapping BIBFRAME to FRBR lies in the basic ambiguity of the meaning of the respective concepts. For instance, as is noted by IFLA, the FRBR concept of work is an abstraction, meaning that it is hard to define its "precise boundaries" and that the divisions between works and between works and expressions may in fact be culturally dependent [18]. Furthermore, as other researchers have noted, efforts at operationalizing the concept of work have led to at least two different conceptions of the concept. For instance, some have argued that a work can be conceived as the intellectual content of an endeavor with no "assumptions about how it is physically realized," while, from a different point of view, a work can be conceived as the sum of all common attributes (author, title, etc.) from a set of manifestations [17]. Perhaps complicating the matter is fact that neither BIBFRAME's nor FRBR's hierarchy constitutes a definable bibliographic whole. For instance, although FRBR's entities are organized hierarchically, and are often pictured within a box, there is no single concept to which this hierarchy relates [19]. The need for a kind of super-entity has been noted well in the literature [19]. It would seem that these questions regarding FRBR are equally applicable to BIBFRAME since BIBFRAME does not include a super-entity that encapsulates the work and instance entities. Thus, it appears that there may still be some serious conceptual difficulties that need to be overcome if BIBFRAME, as an entity-relation model, is to be a viable framework for bibliographic description.

Nevertheless, because BIBFRAME appears to be a simplified version of FRBR, perhaps some of the conceptual difficulties regarding FRBR will not negatively affect BIBFRAME as much. For instance, perhaps BIBFRAME's conflation of FRBR's work and expression concepts is useful since it is sometimes difficult to determine the boundaries between a work and its expression. However, since the BIBFRAME initiative has suggested that its model is agnostic, meaning that it can be applied to any model, it must be able to be mapped clearly to other models if it is to foster interoperability. Yet, as one researcher notes, to make the model completely agnostic may be unrealistic, since to be perfectly interoperable, both models require almost equivalent semantics and granularity, a situation which would suggest the redundancy of one of the models [2]. This does not seem to be the case between FRBR and BIBFRAME, which means that the initiative may need to re-examine the possibilities of BIBFRAME working with other models.

## **3.3 Resource description and access (RDA)**

BIBFRAME is designed to be content standard agnostic, meaning that the model does not include requirements or specifications for the use of any particular content standard for bibliographic description. In fact, per the initiative, BIBFRAME is intentionally underspecified so that any content standard may be applied successfully within the context of the model, including those that have yet to be developed [4].

*Linked Open Data - Applications, Trends and Future Developments*

potential interoperability.

These are as follows:

that have embodied it.

**3.2 Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR)**

Published in 1998 by the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), the final draft of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records provided a radical re-conception of bibliographic description. In essence, FRBR is an entity-relation model which is composed of four primary classes (work, expression, manifestation, and item) that separate the intellectual content of resources from various aspects of their physical properties, resulting in a new emphasis on the component pieces of bibliographic data rather than the bibliographic record as a whole [15]. As BIBFRAME, with its three primary entity classes (work and instance and tem), is related, at least superficially to FRBR, and considering the likelihood of FRBR's international acceptance as the standard model of bibliographic description, it is useful to compare the two models to determine the degree of compatibility and

At least on the surface, BIBFRAME and FRBR appear to be closely related. Both models employ the entity-relation approach to bibliographic description and divide the bibliographic record into component pieces which are attached as attributes to entities. As noted, FRBR defines four primary entities for bibliographic description.

• **Work**: "a distinct intellectual or artistic creation" [18]. As such, a work is

• **Expression**: "the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic notation, sound, image, object, movement, etc., or any combination of such forms" [18]. For example, the English text of *Romeo and Juliet*, as separate from the various ways is presented

• **Manifestation**: "the physical embodiment of an expression of a work" [18]. For example, the 1998 Signet Classics edition of *Romeo and Juliet* is a manifestation. In other words, when the expression of a work takes on a physical form,

• **Item**: "a single exemplar of a manifestation" [18]. For example, an item is a single copy of the 1998 Signet Classics edition of *Romeo and Juliet*.

abstraction to specificity of a particular information resource [17]. In a similar fashion, BIBFRAME is constructed of entities in a hierarchical fashion, but instead

As can be seen, the FRBR main entities represent a hierarchical movement from

1.**Work**: "a resource reflecting a conceptual essence of the cataloged resource"

Thus, although BIBFRAME only uses three main entity classes, there is still the same movement from abstraction to specificity as represented in the FRBR

as text, film, sound recording, etc., it becomes a manifestation.

in different editions is an expression of the work.

of FRBR's four levels, BIBFRAME defines three [4]:

2.**Instance**: "a material embodiment of a work"

3.**Item**: "an actual copy (physical or electronic) of an instance"

abstract, pertaining to the intellectual content of a resource as separate from its physical existence. For example, Shakespeare's *Romeo and Juliet* is a work apart from all of the various editions (print and electronic), performances, and films

**8**

Thus, this intentional under-specification is designed to maximize the extensibility of the model and to help ensure its usefulness in a wide range of extant and future information management contexts and use scenarios, as well as for the widest variety of current and future resource types [4].

However, since the BIBFRAME initiative has positioned the model to be the replacement for MARC as the primary method of bibliographic description and data exchange between libraries, the initiative is doing more than simply ensuring the openness of the model to accommodate RDA and other content standards. Per the initiative, the designers are planning on taking an active look at the elements in RDA and other content standards, including the *Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, Second Edition* (AACR2). As a number of researchers have noted, it appears that BIBFRAME is also being designed to specifically accommodate RDA [1, 13, 20], which suggests that this particular content standard may be playing a stronger role in the design of the model than may have been suggested initially. As BIBFRAME is still under development, it remains to be seen exactly to what degree RDA plays a role in the design of the model and what effects this might have on the model's extensibility.

Nevertheless, BIBFRAME designers suggest that the use of profiles will be another way to accommodate a variety of content standards within the model. A BIBFRAME profile is "a document, or set of documents, that puts a Profile (e.g., local cataloguing practices) into a broader context of functional requirements, domain models, guidelines on syntax and usage, and possibly data formats" [10]. According to the initiative, such profiles can be used to define constraints in the creation of BIBFRAME records such as those required by any content standard, including RDA.

As other researchers have noted, RDA may not have gone far enough in distinguishing the content from the carrier of information resources [1, 14]. This potential fundamental flaw in the content standard may pose further difficulties in mapping RDA to BIBFRAME. Such difficulties are presented in the study [21] which shows the uneven mapping between existing RDA classes and BIBFRAME 2.0— particularly the RDA Expression class. The study demonstrates many-tomany relationships in the mapping between RDA and BIBFRAME. Nevertheless, as BIBFRAME is in a relatively early stage of development, the nature and magnitude of these difficulties remain to be seen.
