General comments

Make any comments on the proposed FRBR-LRM as a whole here.


6 thoughts on “General comments

  1. Pingback: World-wide review of the FRBR-Library Reference Model, a consolidation of the FRBR, FRAD and FRSAD conceptual models | FRBR Open Comments

  2. It is worth mentioning that this web site is not in any way affiliated with IFLA or the FRBR-LRM group. This was set up because although the draft was put forth for comments, other than sending an email to an individual there is no way to engage with the group that created the document. There appears to be discussion happening on the RDA-L mailing list as well as the FRBR mailing list (which has not been used for a while, so many people may have forgotten about it). So far, members of the FRBR-LRM group are not part of that discussion.

    If you post an email or send a comment to the FRBR-LRM group, feel free to add it here as a way to share it. And please let others know about this site.


  3. From the introduction to the FRBR-LRM document:

    “The FRBR-Library Reference Model aims to be a high-level conceptual reference model developed
    within an entity-relationship modelling framework. The model covers bibliographic data as understood
    in a broad, general sense.” “The model aims to uncover general principles behind the logical structure of bibliographic information, without making any presuppositions about how that data might be stored in any particular system or application.” (p.5)

    I suspect that these statements appear to be broader than the actual scope of the document, because from these it sounds like the effort is about bibliographic data in the abstract. Instead, the “L” of “LRM” is “library” and that gives a different impression – that this is about bibliographic information as created and managed by libraries. There is quite a bit of bibliographic data in the world that is neither – citations in journal articles, publishing house data, abstracting and indexing services, etc.

    I have the feeling that there are assumptions behind some of the thinking in this document that are not made manifest, and that makes it harder to interpret some of the statements. I am wary of a highly detailed technical document that purports to be technology neutral. I am even more wary of it when I encounter terms like “entity” “domain” “range” and “disjoint” which carry quite a bit of technology baggage. Rather than claiming neutrality, it would be preferable to state clearly ones assumptions, and let those assumptions be challengeable. At least in that way the readers of the document can know what was the thinking behind various statements.


  4. A discussion that took place (albeit briefly) on Twitter was in response to a question that I asked: Is FRBR (including FRBR-LRM) intended to be descriptive of bibliographic data, or is it prescriptive of library bibliographic practices? Some responded confidently “It’s descriptive”, others “It’s prescriptive”, and still others “It’s a bit of both.” My question to the committee is: How do you see it? Do you believe that FRBR-LRM describes the bibliographic “universe”? or do you see it as a statement about that universe that cataloging should adhere to? Or both?


  5. Now it’s May 1, we can ask the question: what exactly is the status or value of FRBR-LRM, when all system vendors/developers are implementing the LoC BIBFRAME model?


  6. Yes, it’s May 1 — This blog will be wrapped up into a report and sent to the FRBR-LRM Review group by midnight EST.

    @lukask you ask a very an essential question. I think the FRBR-LRM is a level above BIBFRAME. The BF vocabulary can accommodate the FRBR-LRM model. How well it can do this? — is another question.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s