FRBRization: A Method for Turning Online Public Finding Lists into Online Public Catalogs Item Type Journal (Paginated) Authors Yee, Martha M. Citation FRBRization: A Method for Turning Online Public Finding Lists into Online Public Catalogs 2005-06, 24(3):77-95 Information Technology and Libraries Publisher ALA (LITA) Journal Information Technology and Libraries Download date 28/09/2021 00:10:30 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/106459 FRBRization: A Method for Turning OnlineArticle PublicTitle: Finding Lists into Onlinesubtitle Public in same Catalogs font Martha M. Yee In this article, problems users are having searching authors (such as translators), and for the work itself, as for known works in current online public access catalogs well as by multiple bibliographic records for its various expressions/manifestations. Then I will briefly review (OPACs) are summarized. A better understanding of the FRBR entities with emphasis on the entities work, AACR2R/MARC 21 authority, bibliographic, and hold- expression, and manifestation. Next, I will point out ings records would allow us to implement the approaches where work identifiers exist in our current AACR2R and outlined in the IFLA Functional Requirements for MARC 21 bibliographic and authority records. I will then discuss the difficulties of using computer algorithms to Bibliographic Records to enhance, or “FRBRize,” our identify expressions/manifestations (formerly known as current OPACs using existing records. The presence editions), as some of the FRBRization projects do, since of work and expression identifiers in bibliographic and the records were designed to impart such information authority records is analyzed. Recommendations are made to humans, not to machines. Finally, I will suggest some possible solutions to the problems users are having with concerning better indexing and display of works and our current display and indexing of works that exist in expressions/manifestations. Questions are raised about the multiple expressions/manifestations. appropriateness for the creation of true catalogs of client- server technology that deliver records over the Internet. Users’ Problems with o judge from the multiple projects afoot to try to ■ Current OPACs FRBRize the display and indexing of cataloging T records, there seems to be a general recognition Probably one of the most common OPAC searches is for these days of the problems catalog users are having a work of which the author and title are known. FRBR’s with multiple-expression (edition) works in our online entities, as well as AACR2R itself, owe a great debt to public access catalogs (OPACs). Among these projects the work of the cataloging theorist, Seymour Lubetzky.2 are those by VTLS, OCLC, RLG, and the Library of Lubetzky warned us repeatedly of the problems that Congress Network Development and MARC Standards 1 arise for library users due to change and variation of Office. However, these projects appear to have been work identifiers, both authors (corporate and personal) designed without complete awareness of the degree to and titles. Given that fact, one would think that a well- which our existing records could be used to FRBRize designed catalog based on Lubetzky’s principles and the catalogs, and they sometimes seem to be based on mis- FRBR model derived from them would: understandings of how the existing records work and what they were designed to do. (See appendix A for a 1. allow a user seeking a particular work to do so brief review and critique of FRBRization projects.) This using both the author’s name and the title in paper is an attempt to explicate the hidden complexities combination; of our millions of existing bibliographic and authority 2. take the user’s search and match author terms records and to show ways to improve catalog design against authority records for authors, as well as based on a better understanding of these records. title terms against authority records for works, so I would like to emphasize that my focus is on rec- as to pick up any name or title variants or changed ommending more intelligent use of our millions of names or titles the user may have used in his or her existing MARC 21 bibliographic, authority, and hold- search; and ings records in order to improve system design and to 3. produce a list of all expressions/manifestations of FRBRize OPAC displays and indexes. There are other the work (Lubetzky would have used the word ways in which our practices could be changed to create “editions”), with separate lists of works about the better and more FRBRized catalogs, such as changes work and other related works, so that the user could in the cataloging rules, the MARC 21 format, and the be free to make his or her own decisions about whole infrastructure of the shared cataloging environ- which expression/manifestation is of interest and ment, but these other approaches are beyond the scope whether or not works about the work or related of this paper. works might be of interest. I will begin by trying to describe the types of prob- lems users are having now because of the fact that our catalogs do not seem to recognize that the work a user is seeking is rarely represented by a single bib- liographic record; instead it is usually represented by Martha M. Yee ([email protected]) is Cataloging Supervisor at multiple authority records for its author, subsidiary theAuthor UCLA ID boxFilm for and 2 columnTelevision layout Archive. FRBRIZATION: A METHOD FOR TURNING ONLINE PUBLIC FINDING LISTS INTO ONLINE ARTICLEPUBLIC CATALOGS TITLE | AUTHOR | YEE 77 Surprisingly, we still do not have catalog software that is there any indication that there are many more edi- can do any one of those three things. I take the Library of tions of Tom Sawyer under the name Mark Twain. The Congress’s (LC) OPAC as an example, but I want to make sad fact is that whenever you do a keyword search in clear that no other catalog software is any better. We are most current OPAC software, your search will not be all in the position of having to choose among undesirable matched against authority records. I should observe alternatives when it comes to selecting OPAC software, that SIRSI is a possible exception, as it gives libraries due to the fact that it is designed by people who have the option of a keyword search that searches authority apparently never heard of Lubetzky or FRBR and who records, an option that unfortunately many libraries do have not, therefore, understood the principles that under- not implement. lie the AACR2R records that are indexed and displayed Perhaps our imaginary user will realize that it doesn’t in their software. make sense for LC to only have six editions, related When you access LC’s OPAC, at catalog.loc.gov, you works, and so on, of Tom Sawyer, and he or she will retry are first asked to choose between a basic search and a the search using “Mark Twain,” thus doing the work guided search. Additional information tells you that the authority records should be doing.3 When we do the basic search includes a search by “Title or Author/ this, we get 239 results. The first twenty-five to display Creator,” while the guided search allows you to “con- do not include a single edition of Tom Sawyer. In other struct keyword searches.” Because we want to search words, sound recordings, motion pictures, adaptations using both title and author or creator, it appears that nei- for children, and works about Tom Sawyer are listed ther one of these searches will work for us. higgledy-piggledy with editions of the work, and there Now we insiders know that, in fact, if you want to use are so many of the former that none of the latter display both an author and a title in a search, you can construct on the first screen. a keyword search to do so. This fact is not self-evident to To use Lubetzky’s terminology, rather than a cata- anyone but us; however, as we know from experience at log, this is a finding list. We should refer to these not as UCLA, where there was a faculty rebellion over the loss OPACs but as OPAFLs! Call me Cassandra, but the fact of the old name-title search in our last OPAC, despite the that we can’t carry out the objectives of the catalog so fact that the default search on the initial screen of our cur- eloquently described and urged upon us by Lubetzky rent OPAC was always a keyword search, and if someone does not bode well for our future as a profession. The entered author terms and title terms, the result would be rest of the world has become enamored of Google. the rough equivalent of the old name-title search, with Google cannot carry out the objectives of the catalog, somewhat less precision. UCLA faculty did not recog- either. But if our choice is between OPACs, which are nize that keyword was roughly the same as name-title; I expensive but cannot carry out the objectives of the suspect that means most other catalog users would not catalog, and Google, which is cheap and cannot carry recognize it, either. out the objectives of the catalog, I know what the choice However, if we use our inside knowledge and put is likely to be. When we try to argue for the continuing our author words and our title words into a keyword existence of our profession on the basis of our expertise search in the LC catalog, we get some results. But are in the organization of information, what scholar in the we getting all the expressions of the work we desire? humanities is going to stand up for us, after spending a Consider the case of a user who wants to look through all career trying to navigate the chaos we have created in available editions of Tom Sawyer; perhaps this user wants our online catalogs for those who are looking for known to get an idea of the bibliographic history of this impor- prolific works? tant work of American literature, or perhaps he or she What can we do about this situation? The rest of wants to select an edition to read or purchase but does this paper is an attempt to provide an answer to this not know what editions have been published.