Issue 360: LRMoo

Starting Date: 
2017-04-05
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the members of Consolidation Editorial Group of the IFLA FRBR Review Group: Pat Riva, Patrick Le Bœuf, and Maja Žumer presented to the crm-sig the new Library Reference Model (LRM) .  The crm-sig and the frbr-sig  decided to  harmonizing it with FRBRoo and CIDOC CRM. The outcome of the discussion is documented in  the minutes of this meeting.

 

Heraklion, April 2017

In the 39th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 32nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-frbr sig worked on harmonization of the approved by IFLA LRM with FRBRoo. The outcome of this work documented in the minutes.

Heraklion, October 2017

 

Current Proposal: 

posted by Pat on 5/12/2017

Hello Martin,

We have a first group of drafts for LRMoo for you comments. These are still very much drafts and we are aware that there is some lack of editorial consistency due to each person working separately on drafts without seeing the full picture. We are still missing a draft of the proposed merger of F3 Manifestation Product Type and F24 Publication Expression (and its related F19, F30, F32 and properties), but most of the classes we discussed in October are included.

​We have also made a first draft of the LRM(er) to LRMoo mapping. Since we did not discuss the attributes in LRM(er) in October, the mapping shows some that are not obvious and may raise issues.

One thing we will need to discuss in January is how the LRM representative expression attributes will fit with the existing properties for representative expression and representative manifestation.

Looking forward to hearing what you think.

posted by Martin on 15/12/2017

I am working through it. It just made a formal exercise to check that all properties of deleting Individual Work and F22/F23 are consistent. Attached.
I'll look now at the F3/F24 merger.

posted by Martin on 16/12/2017

Dear Pat, all,

Just thinking about the F3 Manifestation Product Type and F24 Publication Expression merger.

A possible solution is a rethinking:

Publication Expression as the expression that includes determination of optical/material features of the Item,
and hence are F3.

If this includes the Manifestation Singleton as immediate manual work, and not a singular print,
this concept of expression extends to the hard-to-define borderlines between manually intended features and
not-intended features, such as slipping of a pen.

Then, we have to rethink Item. Is a painting an item, or a Manifestation Singleton? Is a booklet of paintings
an Item? I think we should somewhere restrict ourselves to some form of signs.

Is an inscription on a wall an Item? I'd say not.

(I would not like to include Patrick's remark that libraries continue to say they have an exemplar. I'd regard this as too
library specific. That's rights, as Patrick stated, but I do not see why we should change "Item" to this idea, because it
leaves the real Item undefined. Also, the purpose of FRBR was to serve the library user??)

The archival practice to bind things together as storage units must not be confused with the publisher intentions.

I'd tend to see an Item as a physical mobile object intended as a message to some public, i.e., not bound to a single receiver, as a
letter, but to be distributed (or go from hand to hand). That is an intention based definition.

Then, publication expression/ Manifestation would be the ultimate (relevant) form definition for the distribution.
Does it make sense to distinguish an "author expression" ?

Border cases are manuscripts with unique texts, but also desktop publishing. They include both aspects in one process and one product.
That is a strong argument to make F3 a case of expression (with optical/physical features).

The question is, if we would distinguish a non-optical Expression type. But I can imagine all transitions from an audio text to
a full pdf lay-out. So, may be more a question of a typology (than making a prototypical process the world and ignore the rest?)
that defines expression types that are "not yet publishable".

Then we are back at the question of the relevant signs, because any carrier has all optical and physical features.

So, rethinking, what does an author sending a text in Word or hand-written, but NOT MEANING the editor to use the layout?

posted by Martin on 17/12/2017

I add my latest proposal for the F3/F24 merger. Please comment. This is more complex!

posted by Pat on 18/12/2017Hi Martin,

Much food for thought here.

For F35 Nomen Use Statement: I am no longer convinced that it is a subclass of F2 Expression. Since we consider that an F2 Expression must express some F1 Work, and I cannot see what work is expressed by a nomen use statement. I think instead that F35 should be a subclass of E90 Symbolic Object.

For R4 carriers provided by, I agree that E90 Symbolic Object is better as the domain than F2. Any symbolic object can have carriers, not just an expression.

This fits well with your observation that F32 Carrier Production Event is more general than F3, as any E90 can have carriers produced for it.

For R5 has component, I agree with making it also a subproperty of P106

Declaring F3 Manifestation as a subclass of F2 Expression will be very unexpected to our readers and will have to be carefully explained in the scope note, as in the E-R formulation of LRM we have declared Expression and Manifestation to be disjoint. But in LRM we do not explicitly acknowledge that all manifestations are one-to-one with publication expressions, and thus have an essential nature as an aggregate (where the publisher's contribution is often minimized in cataloguing practice, but of course it must be there). Once we see it this way, then it does makes sense that the F3 Manifestation which is basically a specific kind of aggregating expression, is a subclass of F2.


For item, yes it is true that it must be something intended to be shared/multiply used, or else it would not be possible to have it in a library. And so I think I agree with this observation:

I'd tend to see an Item as a physical mobile object intended as a message to some public, i.e., not bound to a single receiver, as a
letter, but to be distributed (or go from hand to hand). That is an intention based definition.


I do hesitate to treat different content types separately, audio vs written or visual notation.

Posted by Maja on 19/12/2017

I agree with all except the Manifestation as subclass of Expression. I am not sure that Manifestation is an aggregating expression. Manifestation is the aggregate, the result, and it also embodies the aggregating expression. We also need the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation (with layout design, particular font, colour etc) in order to cluster all publications embodying the same expression (text in this example)…

posted by Martin on 19/12/2017

Dear Maja,

On 12/19/2017 12:49 PM, Žumer, Maja wrote:
>
> Hi,
>

>
> I agree with all except the Manifestation as subclass of Expression. I am not sure that Manifestation is an aggregating expression. Manifestation is the aggregate, the result, and it also embodies the aggregating expression. We also need the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation (with layout design, particular font, colour etc) in order to cluster all publications embodying the same expression (text in this example)…


I think there some fundamental methodological question to clarify:

A) If F2 and F3 do not have a common superclass, you need to define which substance and identity criteria are different for Manifestation and Expression in ALL cases. This must not be confused with "the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation". That would be a logical mistake.  If the Manifestation is basically a bit a wider concept than the Publication Expression, it is still distinct from all non-publication expressions, albeit a special case of Expression.

B) Do all non-publication expressions have common characteristics beyond being Expressions? If not, we only need a typology of expressions which are definitely NOT publication expressions, such as a text identified as a sequence of of words or characters.

C) Are there cases in which we cannot separate the Manifestation from any other Expression?  I argue that in desktop publishing, there are cases
of Expressions that cannot be distinguished from Manifestation, and primary manuscripts, if the intended message contains the physical appearance. If, on the other side, we argue that we can extract from any Manifestation a distinct Expression, albeit a secondary interpretation of an original work, we need to define which composition of levels of signs a manifestation must necessarily have. Can we do that?

D) Is the Manifestation result of a Work, an intellectual product with associated IPRs or not?  If yes, it must be a kind of Expression. The only solution to maintain
A disjointness of F2 and F3 would be, to require F2 to be of a special form of of signs not shared by publication expressions, e.g. at least a character level without typeface, and to define a "super expression" which is more than F2 and F3. This may imply however, that there are Manifestations without any other Expression, as above, or to restrict F2 as something which in any case can be "manifestated" with substantially added features.

If Manifestation is NOT an intellectual product, we are back at the discussion between incidental carrier forms and product types, i.e.mechanical questions.

If I can get a clear, consistent answer to these question, I can think about a solution 

posted by Martin on 5/1/2018

I wish you a Happy New Year!

Should we publish the attached to CRM-SIG before the meeting? All further editing will depend on if we agree  on this logic...
Is there any mistake in it, any alternative to it?

posted by Pat on 8/1/2018

Yes, I think it will help people prepare to have this in advance.
I would propose to also distribute in advance the mapping from LRM(er) to LRMoo that Melanie prepared. I have attached it here.

In the reduction, there is one small point where I have a doubt. I am no longer convinced that F35 Nomen Use Statement is a subclass of F2 Expression, as it does not have a corresponding F1 Work. Rather, I think F35 is a subclass of E90 Symbolic Object.

The other draft rewritten scope notes do not have to be posted in advance. We can look at them when we are together, as we get to them.

posted by Trond on 9/1/2018

Dear all,

Merging F24 Publication Expression with F3 Manifestation Product Type is a needed simplification, but is also rather challenging to do this. I was assigned the job of drafting a scope note for the merged class, but failed completely because of my work load before Christmas.

Some comments to the before-christmas discussion:

The solution of merging F24 into F3 by keeping F3 as subclass of Type or Product Type but leaving out the inheritance from F2, allows us to distinguish well between the content of the publication and the publication as a whole. This works well for what we commonly think of as publications as their identity mainly is defined by the associated publication event rather than the nature of its substance. However, as we have seen, this model gets problematic when we try to be more generic and use it on other resources that are not the direct products of a typical publication process.

We also see that it is difficult to deal with other intellectual contributions that may be evident from the manifestation such as the selection, arrangement and presentation of expressions. If we merge F24 and F3, we also implicitly remove the possibility to relate the Publication Work (or other subtypes of Container Work) to the manifestation, simply because there will be no individual and identifiable expression (in the form of signs) of a Publication Work or an Aggregation Work. One solution can of course be to remove the Container Work and its subtypes, and maybe come up with some other solution for describing intellectual contributions in the form of selections, arrangements and presentations of expressions but this will probably only complicate the model.

Merging F3 into F24 and keeping the subclassing of F2 Expression is the alternative approach. As pointed out it is not in line with the LRM, although it kind of makes sense to view expression-manifestation as a continuum of more and more specifically designed signs. A main benefit of this is that it will make the model a bit simpler with respect to modelling Publication, Aggregation and Serial Works.  Having this inheritance does not mean that we remove Manifestation (Product Type) as a specific entity from the model. It is a rather crucial to distinguish between Expressions and Manifestations, whether we want to show the contents of a manifestation, or the alternative publications of an expression.

Attached is a pdf with figures I made to try to figure out the problem.

posted by Pat on 10/1/2018

Hi Trond,

My first reaction is that your second drawing looks like the LRM general model of aggregates figure 5.7, with the publication work taking the role of the aggregating work, and the F3 is an aggregate manifestation.

posted by Martin on 10/1/2018

I agree with your comments. I would however generalize F3 into Manifestation, and have the product type as a special case.Then, F3 determines all features or appearance, regardless if singleton, electronic publishing, or industrial printing.

posted by Trond on 10/1/2018

Yes, it will be the same.

The problem I see is that LRM defines the aggregating work as the selection and sequencing, but does not define what the substance of the aggregating expression is. The general expression definition does not really match this case, and I am not sure if I believe in the existence of this entity in between the Aggregating Work and the Manifestation  

posted by Melanie Roche on 14/1/2018

Dear all, 

I have updated the draft of the mapping from LRMer to LRMoo, based on comments Pat sent me a while ago. Attached is the result. In red, lines that need further elaboration from the SIG meeting next week. Doubtless other things will come up following our discussions, but I wanted at least these lines to stand out.
 
I did not change anything regarding style: I prefer to be sure there is a consensus regarding non-merged lines for multiple mappings before undoing everything. Personally I think merged lines are easier on the eye and more readily understandable, but if there is a methodological reason why they shouldn’t be used, please tell me.
 
My apologies for doing this at the very last minute.