Representative Expressions in Bibliographic Collections
Peter Organisciak, Assistant Professor
Research Methods and Information Science, University of Denver
peter.organisciak@du.edu @POrg
Context
traditional approach in providing bibliographic information in cataloging was to collocate multiple expressions and in this framework all expressions are equal; but in the digital environment, end users are presented with an overwhelming amount of expressions and must choose for themselves the best expression for their purposes
Representative Expressions in LRM
FRBR and its related standards have been recently consolidated into the IFLA Library Reference Model(LRM)(Riva, Le Boeuf, & Žumer, 2017)
LRM maintains the FRBR entities and refines them further by defining attributes and relationships. In addition, LRM introduces a new attribute of a work – representative expression. The LRM framework states that end-users perceive works as having certain inherent qualities, and in order for an expression to best represent a work, it must include those qualities(LRM, p. 91).
Users may choose expressions based upon how closely an expression demonstrates the qualities defined as essential to a certain work and thus how representative an expression is.
An acknowledgment in LRM is that there are grades of canonicity, rather than a single correct expression. They suggest a'distance' between canonical and other expressions, where the universe of a work is realized through clusters of related expressions.
According to IFLA LRM(2017, p.91), representative expressions refer to“the perceived distance between a given expression and the image of the ideal expression.”
Digital Libraries
Aligning with LRM's revival of the discussion of representativeness is a practical prompt that makes the topic more pressing: the emergence of large-scale digital libraries.
The biggest bibliographic DLs - Google Books, Internet Archive, HathiTrust Digital Library - have grow through multi-institutions scanning projects
By virtue of this manner of creation, they hold a great deal of duplication and repetition
Different Approaches to Representativeness
Context-Based Factors
Authorial Intent
What did the author consider their cononical expression?
What about works that change authors, like text books?
Status Quo
Did Greedo shoot first?
Critical Judgment
Does the first edition of Frankenstein capture the subversive‘franken-essence’ better than the more common second one?
Content-Based Factors
Revisions and Editions
Whose edits? e.g. The neverending edits of Robinson Crusoe
Completeness
Expectation of abridgments as less representative
Translations
Form
How do we instrumentalize representativeness?
Metadata Approaches
Content Approaches
Subjective or Expert Opinion
Continuing the discussion
Discussion of a'best' expression of a work should consider,'for whom'?
Codifying'representativeness' requires ways to convey disagreement
Context
Representative Expressions in LRM
Digital Libraries
Different Approaches to Representativeness
How do we instrumentalize representativeness?
Continuing the discussion