do we need to change? do we want to change? the future of bibliographic information systems

Do we need to change?Do we want to change?

The future of bibliographic information systems

Maja ŽumerUniversity of Ljubljana

Slovenia

What is different?

• Libraries are facing competition for the first time

• Library catalogues are not perceived as intuitive – compared to other tools and services

• Users actively avoid using the catalogue even when they want to borrow a book

• „Everything is on the Web“• Users expect simple tools which do not

require specific training

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 2

Are libraries aware of the changes?

• Not completely– Libraries are not questioning (enough)

their tools– They are relying on tradition

• But there are discussions and developments:– New models– Awareness of new tools and services

(e.g. Semantic Web)– Assuming new roles or performing them

in a new way (e-learning) CASLIN, 13 June 2011 3

The FRBR family

• FRBR: conceptual model of the biblographic universe– Focus on Group 1(products of

intellectual endeavour)

• FRAD: extension of FRBR – Focus on authority data (Group 2

and works)

• FRSAD: extension of FRBR– Focus on the subject relationship



User functions• using the data to FIND materials that

correspond to the user's stated search criteria

• using the data retrieved to IDENTIFY an entity (e.g., to confirm that the document described corresponds to the document sought by the user, or to distinguish between two similar documents)

• using the data to SELECT an entity that is appropriate to the user's needs (e.g., to select a text in a language the user understands, or to choose a version of a computer program that is compatible with the hardware and operating system available to the user)

• using the data in order to acquire or OBTAIN access to the entity described


Entities

• Group 1(products of intellectual and artistic

endeavor)• Work• Expression• Manifestation• Item

• Group 2 (actors related to Group1 entities)

• Person• Corporate Body

• Group 3 (subjects of works)

• Concept• Object• Event• Place


Work

Expression

Manifestation

Item

is realized through

is embodied in

is exemplified by

Group 1Conceptual/content

Physical/recording


FRAD

• Family added in Group 2

• Name as a separate entity

• Justify and Contextualise added


FRAD

FRSAD– generalisation of FRBR


FRSAD

Nomen: any alpha numeric, sound, visual etc. symbol or combination of symbols by which a thema is known, referred to or addressed as

Thema: anything that can be subject of a work


User tasks FRSAD:

Find

Identify

Select

Explore

FRBR :

Find

Identify

Select

Obtain

FRAD:

Find

Identify

Contextualize

Justify


Why FRBR?

• Not a replica of a card catalogue

• Bibliographic universe presented as a network - relationships

• Supports exploration• Is intuitive



FRBR: intuitive?

• Declaratively user-oriented• No user studies

• No completely FRBR-based implementation

• One way to find out: mental model elicitation


Study

• Do mental models resemble the conceptual model?

• 30 participants• Ljubljana / vicinity• July 2007 – February 2008• We only looked at Group 1

entities


1. Card sorting

• Abstract/concrete nature of the things described

• Cards: plain descriptions of instances of FRBR entitites

• No expression/manifestation groupings (Work – Editions – Copies)

• original expressions with works, other expressions with manifestations


2. Concept mapping

• “What comes out of what?”


9

7

11 14

8 12

1 13

2 3

4

5

9

7 10

8

11

12

14

13

5

2

3

1

4

11 13 2 12

8 5 3

1

10

7

9

11

4

12

11

1 13 7 10

2

4

3

5 8

14

12

12

8

9

7

14

13 1

5 2 3

4 11

10


Task 2: Results

• Most common connections were FRBR-like

• Core group of mental models close to FRBR


3. Comparison task

• 1. Interviews• 2. Rankings

• 11 pairs of similar objects (mostly books)


Rankings

• Ranking pairs according to their perceived substitutability from the most substitutable to the least substitutable

• Pairs could be on the same level of substitutability


Pair Average Rank

Parma 2

Koča 2

Kačič 3.8

Bulgakov 3.9

Mystery 4.8

Kam 7.2

Skrivnost 7.4

Economics 7.7

Africa 7.8

Poirot 9.6

Room 9.7


Conclusions of the study

• There is no single mental model• The more people think about

bibliographic universe and the more they interact with it, the more FRBR-like their mental models are

• Results of user study indicate that FRBR can be used as conceptual basis for catalogs

• Positioning of the original expression in the model (often seen as surrogate of work)

Continuation

• Based on Task 2• List of descriptions+six graphs

(including FRBR graph)• 6 groups of 10 students – two

examples

• „Which graph is the best representation of the relationships between entities listed?“


Preliminary results

• FRBR by far the most frequent choice

• Some correlation with the domain of study

• The comments are still being analysed


If FRBR is the model, why not implement it immediately?

• Development of the model• Harmonisation of the FRBR

family• Frbrisation• Presentation of search results• Semantic web


Development of the model• The text of FRBR is occasionally

vague, open to interpretation– Expression– Aggregates

• Analysis of attributes and relationships


Harmonisation

• Different modelling approaches• User tasks• Differences

– FRBR and FRSAD– FRBR and FRAD– FRAD and FRSAD


Frbrisation

• Extraction of FRBR concepts from existing bibliographic data

• Usually by automatic means


Why?

• To show benefits of FRBR in the absence of “born FRBR” data

• Frbrisation + “Born FRBR” = compatible

• Essential for the transition


Challenges

• Some entities are difficult to identify

• Quality depends on the quality of legacy data (completeness, consistency, errors)

• MARC is not designed for such processing– Relationships– Important information as text (notes)– Missing entities


Some good results

• Relatively good extraction of entities and relationships for complete records (e.g. national bibliographies)

• For optimal results algorithms adapted to each (part of) database

• Matching algorithms

• Many projects


Presentation of search resultsCurrently•Lists of manifestations•Relationships missing or not evident•Exploration not supported

Visualisation as a possible scenario


M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

E E EE EEEE

W W W W W W


W

E E EE EEEE

W W W W WW

M MMMMMMMM

adapted as imita

ted

as

issued with

part of series

subj

ect o

f

W

W

W

WW

W W

WW

WWW

WW

W

W

W

W

WW

W

W

W

WW

W W

novelmotion picturemusicalpicture bookplay

illustrationsliterary criticismnovel

novelliterary criticismTV documentary


FRBR and Semantic Web• Many projects

– Controlled vocabularies in SKOS– Linked Data– RDF

• IFLA Namespaces project– Open Metadata Registry– Each of three models separately– Finished after the harmonisation

– Investigation of other formats– Identification


Identifiers

• Essential for export and reuse• No consensus on identifiers of FRBR

entities• Not used enough (ISBN – 30%)• Not used consistently


An illustration…

VITIELLO (2004)

GATENBY(2008)

LEBOEUF (2005)

HAKALA (2006)

ISBN M M M M

ISSN M M M M

ISRC E M E

ISAN W, E W W

ISWC W W W, E

ISTC W E W, E

ISMN M M M

V-ISAN M E


• We should not wait for the perfect solution

• VIAF• Cooperation of all stakeholders

(publishers, rights management…)


Research

• Basic– Vision– Understanding information

behaviour

• Applied– Technical solutions– Pilot systems

• All verified with users CASLIN, 13 June 2011 49

Do we want to change?

Probably not…

But resisting the change will result in the loss of users


Do we have to change?

YES

The future of libraries is change and competition with other information providers and their tools


I hope this is the future…


Thank you

[email protected]


do we need to change? do we want to change? the future of bibliographic information systems

Documents

new way elearning caslin

authority data group

frbr familyfrbr

user functionsusing

extension of frbr focus

user tasks frsad

simple tools

entity describedcaslin