Conceptual models in LIS

2.4.1

Introduction

Conceptual models have been used mainly in database design, where they are called also abstract models (Carlyle, 2006). In Computer Science they implement the abstract

specification of data structures that define an entity-relationship representation of a domain. A conceptual model represents -but doesn’t implement- ‘concepts’ (entities) and relationships between them.

The main conceptual models that were referred in the literature on Topic Maps in LIS are FRBR and CIDOC-CMR which will be briefly described next. One alternative proposal to the FRBR conceptual model is presented by Professor Shoichi Taniguchi, called “the expression- prioritized model”. This is discussed in Berg (2004). Taniguchi (2003) also reviews the existing conceptual models in cataloging and other areas “such as archives, rights management, record keeping, and museums” (p.3).

Other conceptual models existing in the library domain are the Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records

(FRSAR). The Resources Description and Access (RDA) is the updated version of the Anglo- american Cataloging Rules (AACR2). It has been structured according to these and the FRBR model.

2.4.2

FRBR

FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) is the best known conceptual model of library cataloging. It was developed by The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) from 1993 to 1998.

Since FRBR is a conceptual model, its main components are the entities, the relationships between them and their attributes. Entities, according to Carlyle (2006) “are things, either physical or abstract. Thus, an entity can be virtually anything: relationships are interactions among entities; and attributes are properties or characteristics of either entities or

relationships.” (p.266)

FRBR gives conceptual structure to those entities, attributes and relationships, and to the bibliographic records that register their bibliographic descriptions. Besides, it orders the terminology to refer to the entities in the “bibliographic universe”. It was created with the “primary purpose of improving cataloging records (a product), cataloging (a process), and catalogs (a technology).” (Carlyle, 2003)

The entities conceptualized by FRBR are divided into three groups, as described by Tillet (2003) and defined in the FRBR final report (IFLA, 1998):

- Group 1: Work, expression, manifestation and item.

o Work: “A distinct intellectual or artistic creation.”

o Expression: “The intellectual or artistic realization of a Work.”

o Manifestation: “The physical embodiment of an Expression of a Work.”

o Item: “A single exemplar of a Manifestation.”

- Group 2: Person and corporate body. These entities are related to the entities

in Group 1 by relations that show their roles with respect to the entities in Group 1.

- Group 3: Subjects of works. That is concepts, objects, events, places, and any

of the Group 1 or Group 2 entities when they are subjects of works.

- User tasks: find, identify, select, and obtain. Additionally, FRBR recognizes

the importance of being able to navigate.

Due to the scope of this thesis, FRBR will not be explained or studied in detail. However, which is interesting to observe for some of the conclussions, are some similarities with the concepts in Information Organization described earlier. With respect to ‘document languages’ and ‘work languages’, it would be easy to think of works and expressions (from group 1) and group 2 and 3, as entities to be described by work languages, because they describe

information entities and not physical ones. Manifestation and item, in the other hand, refers to physical objects, and could be considered in the realm of what document languages describe. However, as it was explained in section 2.2.2.1, the distinction between information entities and physical entities is blurred. This has to do with the concept of ‘bibliographic universe’ and ‘work’ which is a difficult issue and the subject of ongoing theoretical discussions in LIS. For instance, a problematic issue in the context of this conceptual framework is the concept of “work” in FRBR, compared to the concept of “work” in Svenonius, but this issue is beyond the scope of the current thesis.

The implications though, for understanding the relation of FRBR with Topic Maps, are in the FRBR user tasks (which relate to the bibliographic objectives described by Svenonius – section 2.2.4), and in the fact that it is a conceptual model and thus a technology independent representation that can be flexibly implemented. The process of implementing it in actual catalogs has been called FRBRization. Aalberg (2005) explains that implementation can be

done at different levels: implementing the Group 1 (entities and inherent relationships), implementing the Group 2 and 3 (entities and inherent relationships), implement other relationships, and implementing the FRBR attributes.

2.4.3

CIDOC-CRM

The ICOM/CIDOC (The International Council of Museums) is an international organization devoted to the documentation of museum collections. The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) is an ISO standard (ISO 21127:2006) which provides a general data model for museums with the purpose to standardize enable information interchange and the integration of the museum community, as well as the integration of this community with other ones in the cultural heritage domain12.

The CIDOC-CRM provides a reference ontology for the interchange of cultural heritage information, providing a description of the intellectual structure of data used in museum documentation as well as in other cultural heritage institutions: “This includes collections, sites and monuments relating to fields such as social history, ethnography, archaeology, fine and applied arts, natural history, history of sciences and technology.” (ICOM/CIDOC, 2009). Its purpose is to enable semantic interoperability by explaining the logical structure behind the structures currently used for description.

Since this purpose is similar to the purpose of FRBR in the library field, some efforts to integrate both conceptual models have been done. Aalberg (2005) claims that FRBR is “an ontology for exchanging bibliographic information within the domain and with other

domains”. This could be, for example, the FRBRoo (object-oriented version, harmonized with CIDOC CRM), supported by DELOS, the Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries (Doerr & Le Boef, 2007).

The ICOM/CIDOC Reference Model is “the result of one of the most significant efforts for a formal representation of the basic notions of the cultural application domain.” (Amann, Fundulaki & Scholl, 2000, p.3). It is defined as “a high level ontology” by Stevenson and Styron (2006).