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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 4

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 5

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 6

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 7

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 8

Work

Expression

Manifestation

Item

is realized through

is embodied in

is exemplified by

Group 1Conceptual/content

Physical/recording

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 9

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 10

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 11

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 12

FRAD

• Family added in Group 2

• Name as a separate entity

• Justify and Contextualise added

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 13

FRAD

FRSAD– generalisation of FRBR

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 14

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 15

User tasks FRSAD:

Find

Identify

Select

Explore

FRBR :

Find

Identify

Select

Obtain

FRAD:

Find

Identify

Contextualize

Justify

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 16

Why FRBR?

• Not a replica of a card catalogue

• Bibliographic universe presented as a network - relationships

• Supports exploration• Is intuitive

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 17

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 18

FRBR: intuitive?

• Declaratively user-oriented• No user studies

• No completely FRBR-based implementation

• One way to find out: mental model elicitation

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 19

Study

• Do mental models resemble the conceptual model?

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

entities

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 20

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 21

2. Concept mapping

• “What comes out of what?”

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 22

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 23

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 24

Task 2: Results

• Most common connections were FRBR-like

• Core group of mental models close to FRBR

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 25

3. Comparison task

• 1. Interviews• 2. Rankings

• 11 pairs of similar objects (mostly books)

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 26

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 27

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 28

 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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 29

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?“

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 30

Preliminary results

• FRBR by far the most frequent choice

• Some correlation with the domain of study

• The comments are still being analysed

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 31

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 32

Development of the model• The text of FRBR is occasionally

vague, open to interpretation– Expression– Aggregates

• Analysis of attributes and relationships

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 33

Harmonisation

• Different modelling approaches• User tasks• Differences

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 34

Frbrisation

• Extraction of FRBR concepts from existing bibliographic data

• Usually by automatic means

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 35

Why?

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

• Frbrisation + “Born FRBR” = compatible

• Essential for the transition

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 36

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 37

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 38

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

Visualisation as a possible scenario

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 39

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

E E EE EEEE

W W W W W W

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 40

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 41

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 42

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 43

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 44

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 45

Identifiers

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

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 46

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  

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 47

• We should not wait for the perfect solution

• VIAF• Cooperation of all stakeholders

(publishers, rights management…)

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 48

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 50

Do we have to change?

YES

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

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 51

I hope this is the future…

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 52

Thank you

maja.zumer@ff.uni-lj.si

CASLIN, 13 June 2011 53