AW: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

The difficulties caused by the expression level raise a lot of discussion in Germany too. 
But I agree, we need a way to describe this level. In this context I'd like to emphasize the importance for end users. In an expression we define the language of all associated manifestations and furthermore - out of my point of view more and more important - we define the content type. Everyone who is not fluently in dozens of languages, everyone who uses mobile devices and of course everyone with special needs (i.e. blind users) rely on this information!

Currently, we analyze our bibliographic data sets and we detected ways to infer this basic expression information from other "properties" (fields or sub-fields ;-) ). We didn't start the implementation yet but I'm looking forward to explore as well the throwbacks... However, institution which created such (reliable) information should share it and I think step by step (for sure it's a long process) we can establish an expression level in bibliographic data sets as well for legacy data.


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [] Im Auftrag von
> Emmanuelle Bermes
> Gesendet: Montag, 13. September 2010 21:19
> An: Karen Coyle
> Cc: public-lld
> Betreff: Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata
> We have about the same issue with BnF bibliographic data.
> RDA allows to express a direct relationship between a Manifestation
> and a Work using "Work Manifested
> "( It doesn't
> solve all issues (the Expression still exists and we need a way to
> describe it) but it seems a pragmatic approach to me.
> Emmanuelle
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Karen Coyle <> wrote:
> > I have a dilemma which I think is fairly common. I have bibliographic data
> > that does not follow the FRBR group 1 divisions (work, expression,
> > manifestation, item). These are entries in the Open Library database, which
> > has two levels rather than four: Work, and Everything Else. (OCLC's WorldCat
> > appears to have the same division.) I want to create a relationship between
> > the Work and the Everything Else entity (using their respective
> > identifiers).
> >
> > As defined, FRBR only allows relationships from Expression to Work, and
> > Manifestation to Expression. (I will gloss over Item because there is little
> > item-level information in the records I am concerned with.) What I need,
> > however, is a relationship between a Manifestation (with some Expression
> > information) and a Work. The same Expression information may be found in
> > more than one bibliographic entry so there is no true Expression entity that
> > is defined in the data.
> >
> > I have often seen pre-FRBR bibliographic data coded as "Manifestation" when
> > in fact the data has elements that FRBR would associate with Work,
> > Expression and Manifestation. This brings up more than one question (mainly:
> > what does calling a bibliographic entity a Manifestation mean if there is no
> > "Manifests" relationship? -- In other words, are the FRBR group 1 entities
> > things, relationships, or both?), but on a practical level it seems that we
> > will need to work with bibliographic data that either is not modeled as FRBR
> > entities, or that models a variation on these entities. I'm thinking that
> > some new classes and some new relationships may be needed to accommodate
> > this.
> >
> > Does anyone have ideas about the best way to go about this?
> >
> > kc
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> >
> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
> >
> >

Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 07:17:07 UTC