Archive for the “Future of Bibliographic Control” Category

BIBFRAME Through The Looking Glass

A strong indication that something may be  amiss in BIBFRAME is that the picture drawn by its  model of the bibliographic universe  does not include books, and  as Oxford logician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson observed, “What use is a picture without books?”.

What, If Anything, Is a bf:Holding?

Rather than modelling a specific copy of a book, a BIBFRAME Holding models someone saying things that appear to be about a specific copy of a book. Surprisingly, there is nothing in BIBFRAME’s ontology that corresponds to any copy of a book that the statement might be about.

We cannot ask how many copies of books we know about (unless we are satisfied with the trivial answer “none”). We can only count how many times we have been told about copies of books.   If we have a BIBFRAME Holding from OCLC saying that UNC has a copy of a certain book, and another from UNC saying the same thing, we have two different Holdings.

From this behavior, it seems that a BIBFRAME Holding corresponds to a MARC Holdings Records, rather than a physical book, or FRBR Item.

Do BIBFRAME Annotations  Support Provenance for Holding?

One of the reasons given for  BIBFRAME Annotations is that they carry information about who asserted a statement (via the bf:annotationAssertedBy property).

Despite the  conflation  of Epistemic  and Ontological concerns that we see in bf:Holding, we cannot rely on  the annotationAssertedBy property to support provenance.  If we have one data source that gives one value for  bf:annotationAssertedBy, and a different data source that gives another, conflicting value, we  have no principled way to choose between them, unless we have other provenance information to support our decision.

The problem is readily apparent in the example used for the Holdings Annotation.

    a bf:Holding ;
    bf:annotationAssertedBy <> ;
    bf:dateOfAssertion "20130807" ;

The URI for the Holdings Annotation is in the namespace “”.   The host from which the document was   retrieved is in the domain.

There is a statement claiming that the Holdings Annotation was asserted by .

There is no a priori reason to prefer this assertion  over a claim, in an equally unrelated graph, that

     bf:annotationAssertedBy <> ;

The value of a provenance mechanism that cannot be used without an additional  provenance mechanism is questionable.

Are Annotations Consistently Used For Opinions?

Section 2.1 of the Annotations document states that “Annotations are asserted in order to: [...] express opinions about a resource”.

However, this principle does not seem to be widely applied.  To take the most obvious example, “subject” is treated as a property, despite  Patrick Wilson’s generally accepted arguments that “the subject of a work” is indeterminate.

It is hard to understand the theoretical motivation for  treating subjects as objective, yet regarding cover images regarded as subjective.

Is Provenance Information Needed For All Assertions?

Since  information about a resource is only obtainable empirically, filtered through perception and mind, and  recorded empirically through misperception and typos, without recorded provenance information  we have  weak justification for any bibliographic knowledge we may claim.

The more independent sources for a statement about a sensible property, the more strongly we may be justified in  believing it.

The more trust we have in the expertize of a source with regards to a particular topic, the more we may trust their opinions that a work is or is not about a subject within that topic; however we might simultaneously accept as equally valid the opinion of a specialist in a different field that the work is about a subject in that  field.

If the goal of BIBFRAME is to support the fusion  of  descriptions from multiple different sources, then  provenance  must be supported for all assertions.  If the goal of BIBFRAME is to provide another syntax for storing monolithic records, then the overhead of decomposing these records into individual assertions would seem to require additional justification.

Comments No Comments »

In these prolegomena I will be examining how a lack of shared understanding of these issues may have lead to certain choices that have resulted in unintended consequences in the current proposed BIBFRAME. I will show that these choices and consequences are not intrinsic to all linked data or semantic approaches to bibliographic and other metadata, and that alternatives approaches may have advantages.

I will attempt to give general explanations of some of the terms and  concepts that may not be obvious to those outside the communities in which they involved.   By attempting to bridge the gaps in understanding separating the different communities needed to make any future metadata framework, I hope to make the case that such a framework is both possible and desirable, and to allow more people to make positive contributions to the creation and deployment of such a framework.

In this introduction I give an outline of the remaining prolegomena, and look at the types of knowledge and skills that are needed to build a future Bibliographic Framework .

An outline of the prolegomena

Part II.  What is a Holding that cannot be held?

In the second prolegomenon, I use the Holdings Annotation as presented in the current incarnation of the bibframe proposal as an example some of the problematic features of the current BIBFRAME model.

Part III.  Only Connect: Why a Framework Based on Linked Data and Semantic Technologies Is Worth Pursuing.

In the third prolegomenon I discuss the how using Linked Data and Semantic Technologies can improve the quality and accuracy of existing cataloging practice, and look at some new architectures and applications that a  framework designed for networked use can enable.

Part IV.  IMEW: The Opposite of FRBR is FRBR.

I examine some properties of  FRBR-like data models.  Taking a bottom-up approach, starting with  Items, I relate the main entities in the FRBR WEMI model to concepts found in common  version  control systems used in software development.  I discuss some issues involved in inferring  properties of an Item based on it’s corresponding  Manifestation, Expression, and Work,  raise some questions as to possible identity criteria, and look at some other possible entities that may be implicit in the model .

Part V. On What The…? Ontology and Linked Data for BIBFRAME

Part IV briefly covers some concepts in linked data and ontologies, makes the point that owl and RDF are not the only targets, and that it is more important to accurately capture the semantics of what is being modeled than it is to think about what something might look like in XML. I argue for the use of a more expressive form of modeling and for the use of controlled natural language to specify the model. CNL makes it much easier for people to contribute, and makes it much easier to review.

Part VI:  Implementation: A Simple Matter Of Programming

Part V looks at some of the technical solutions available, some areas of computational complexity, and areas where work is needed. In particular, I describe a possible approach to applying Provenance information to Named Graphs that is compatible with the forthcoming RDF/1.1 recommendations.

Who Knows?  The Location of Knowledge For A New Bibliographic Framework.

The development of the BIBFRAME model of the Bibliographic Universe, and the representation of that model as linked data, using some combination of semantic technologies  has been the occasion of much discussion, and much confusion. The cause  of much of this confusion may perhaps be found in the interwoven, interdisciplinary sources of the basic concepts needed to design and implement a new framework for bibliographic description.

Many words that are precise terms of art in a discipline are used in BIBFRAME to carry very different meanings.  Sometimes this is because the terms has a different meaning in  a different discipline.  In other cases the use of a term appears to have arisen within BIBFRAME.

The blind men and the metaphor

We find ourselves in the familiar situation of  blind men and elephants- arguing fruitlessly amongst ourselves as  dread beasts thunder towards us from  directions unknown  shaking the very earth with each stride. Ontologists and Linked Data specialists; catalogers and cataloging theorists; programmers and data modellers- each hold different pieces of the puzzle, but until the lid of the box is scraped off the  elephant’s foot, we can’t tell how  all the pieces fit together, or which pieces might be missing.

What The Cataloger Knows

As cataloging has evolved over the course of the past few centuries it’s practice has accrued  many rules and conventions, and has been the subject of Great and lesser debates.  As with any evolved system, some of these rules have evolved in response to conditions that no longer reply.

Some practices may be overcomplicated  and purely vestigial – for example,  rules dealing with the works attributed to Spirit Authors.

Other practices may be oversimplified due to the limitations of available technology  to economically produce or make use of more specific technologies. Punctuation that could be generated automatically may be recorded in data elements; information may be recorded only as plain text, whence only natural or artificial intelligence approaches can recover it.

The cataloger knows that all records are wrong.  The cataloger knows that some records are useful.

 Unless we understand basic principles of cataloging, we cannot consider “is this rule necessary?”; we cannot even reach the question   “is this even a rule?”

What The Network Expert Knows

Without a general understanding of how the Internet and the World Wide Web work, we cannot talk about how to design a system that will work at the scale.  We should  understand how replication and caching can be used to provide reliability and performance.

We should understand the dangers of building systems around single, authoritative points of failure; we should appreciate the freedoms that real-time, distributed  designs can allow.

We should understand the security requirements that a framework requires; we should understand what frameworks security technologies enable.

The Bibliographic Network must work in harmony with the ‘Net. 

What The Linked Data and Semantics Expert Knows

Without an understanding of  linked data, ontologies, and semantic technologies in general, it is can be hard to see the benefits that using these technologies can provide.

If we miss the distinctions and purposes of between  different types of languages and systems, it is easy to confuse an ontology language like OWL with a markup description language like XML Schema.

If we confuse the capabilities and  limitations of RDF  and OWL  with  the capabilities and limitations of  all ontology languages and technologies we may lose the opportunity  to capture the knowledge that the Subject Matter Experts are trying to convey.   It is easy to generate  a simplified model in a less expressive language from a more precise model. It is easy to generate simplified models in multiple less expressive languages.

Without knowing what kinds of knowledge can be captured, how that knowledge can be used, and what the costs of using that knowledge in different ways might be,  we cannot decide what level of detail is necessary.

Knowledge that is captured need not be used;  knowledge  not captured  cannot be used.    

What The Philosopher “Knows”

Without a grasp of the outline of some basic concepts from Metaphysics, it is easy to get caught up in trying to find the “one true answer” to questions which have many equally valid solutions. Conversely, one may not be aware of possible solutions that may be well particularly well to suited to a particular problem, or of how some sets of choices may be incompatible.

It is easy to accidentally conflate questions of  Ontology (what there is), and Epistemology (what we know, and how we know it).

⚠ Important Safety Information ⚠

  • Questions that have resisted a definitive answer for thousands of years are seldom resolvable even with video teleconferencing and Powerpoint.
  • Metaphysics is an intrinsically dangerous tool.
  • Always follow safe handling procedures. Never allow the muzzle to cover anything that doesn’t exist.
  • When in doubt, leave the room and  consult a doctor of philosophy.
  • When not in doubt, leave the room, and consult two doctors of philosophy.


Comments No Comments »

Jeff Beall reposts some of the discussion on the  MODS mailing list on the recently published draft of MADS/RDF.  Beall wonders if the proposal, and the initial comments indicate that the entire semantic web effort is doomed. This may be an over-reaction.

I spent some time working on a formal analysis of the semantics of  pre-combined[1]/subdivided subject headings, and how they could be added in a downwards compatible way to SKOS. I had hoped to discuss the topic at the DC VOCAMP held at The Library  immediately after ISWC 2009, but there was no-one at the camp who was interested in library vocabularies, I let the matter drop[2].

Since support for pre-combined headings are one of the  major design goals of  MADS/RDF, I have been looking quite closely at the initial  draft.  I am not yet ready to publish detailed results, but I wanted to take this chance to make a few quick notes on the initial draft.

Minor Issue

There is a quick change that could make it easier for others to evaluate the proposed ontology.  Currently, the URI/IRI of the ontology is “″.  At the moment does not resolve as a URL.  Also, the name is slightly different from current usual practice.  Ontology URIs are typically of the form …/<Year>/<Month>/<Name>; the MADS IRI is in the form …/<Name>/<Year>/<Month>. This encourages some common tools, such as Protege, to abbreviate the ontology name as “11″.

Major issues

  1. The SKOS mappings are imported as part of the reference ontology; however due to problems in naming, this may not show up correctly.  It might be better to include the axioms in the mapping file directly in the main ontology.
  2. The SKOS mappings are incomplete; it is possible that concentrating  on narrowing the differences between SKOS and Standard(NISO Z39.19)/Library KOS semantics would give an end result that should be more useful for use by The Library.
  3. The current draft was created without support from an ontologist or owl expert. There are several problems in the modeling that result from this lack of resourcing.  For example, there are several places where a constraint or restriction is given in a comment that could readily have been represented in OWL, and many properties are not fully or properly specified.  There is a big difference between the ontology design and schema design, and without support resources, it is easy to fall in to some common anti-patterns.
  4. The current draft was created without ready access to Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in the Cataloging COI.  As a result, the ontology may not adequately represent the problem domain, and may make it harder to extend so as  to support LC rules and policy on subject heading formation. When modeling any complex area, regular interaction with relevant SMEs is essential throughout the process, both for knowledge elicitation and model validation.  Early, regular review of the ongoing work  by MODS/MADS Editorial Committee may be helpful.
  5. The current draft does not define the semantics of pre-combined headings; there are different possible interpretations,  but none are discussed, and some inferences appear to be common across all readings.
  6. Given known  data errors in the syndetic structure of LCSH (see e.g. LCSH is to Thesaurus as Doorbell is to Mammal), it may better to devote resources to correcting these issues before deepening the semantics of exposed Linked Data.  This would make the LC vocabularies more reuseable in the web of data, as recommended in the Deanna Marcum’s  ”Response to: On the record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group On The Future of Bibliographic Control“.

[1] Following Soergel, I prefer this term to “Pre-coordinated”

[2] I also worked on relating the to the implied ontologies inferable from Knowledge Organization Systems that used sub-types of BT relationship (BTG, etc) that are part of the international standards, and which were originally included in SKOS, but which were moved to an extension , then finally dropped and relegated to examples in the published recommendation.

Comments No Comments »

Translation party uses the Google Translate API to  turn Machine Assisted Translation abuse into a one-click spectator sport.

They automagically translate an phrase from English to Japanese and back again until they reach an equilibrium, or decide that they’ve tried enough (sometimes they give up prematurely, but you can only beat a dead horse for so long (or as they would say “Only between the wild-goose chase“.

Sometimes, however,   Translaton party discovers makes some remarkable discoveries.

[table id=2 /]

Comments No Comments »

In a case most similar to the landmark US case of Feist vs. Rural Telecommunications,  the Federal Court of Australia  has ruled in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd that mere sweat-of-the-brow does not reach the minimum level  of creativity required to create copyright in compilations of facts. As with Feist in the United States, OCLC’s copyright claims on the Worldcat database  would not seem to survive  in Australia under this decision.

Commercial value not relevant in deciding whether copyright exists

(20)(8) … Copyright is not given to reward work distinct from the production of a particular form of expression: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [28] and [31]. Accordingly, it is “unhelpful to refer to the ‘commercial value’ of the information, because that directs attention to the information itself rather than to the particular form of expression”: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [31] and [166].

Application of rules, no matter how skillfully is not enough to obtain copyright

Section (C) (6) seems especially applicable to some mistaken claims of copyright in bibliographic records;  as in Batlin v. Snyder, <<the requirement of originality [cannot]  be satisfied simply by the demonstration of “physical skill” or “special training”>>

(162) As the evidence shows, the person or persons who utilise the Rules and who, therefore, are submitted by the Applicants to be authors of the Works, do not exercise either “independent intellectual effort” or “sufficient effort of a literary nature” to be considered an author within the meaning of the Copyright Act.

(163) First, it is the Rules that prescribe the particular form of expression of the Works, not any individual person alone or in collaboration with others. The Rules control the content of each Work. The various computer systems generate and control the choice of the content on the basis of the Rules and are responsible for ensuring the vast majority of their valid application. In some circumstances the Rules expressly prohibit certain content.

(164) Secondly, even where there is any level of human “discretion”, it must be exercised in accordance with the Rules. There is no independent effort, let alone such effort being intellectual. There is no effort, let alone sufficient effort, of a literary nature. I reject the Applicants’ contention that there is judgment or discretion used in selecting the material for inclusion. The Rules prescribe, presume and prohibit the actions of the contributors. What choice there is, is the choice given by the Rules, not by any person or persons.

(165)Thirdly, even if the judgment or discretion of the kind asserted by the Applicants was “independent intellectual effort”, it is not relevant intellectual effort. I reject the Applicants’ contention that the relevant intellectual effort involved is in understanding and applying the Rules. The “independent intellectual effort” required must be directed to the creation of the Work: IceTV [2009] HCA 14; 254 ALR 386 at [33]. Such skill and judgment, on the facts, is not directed to the creation of each Work but to the application of the Rules. Moreover, the “work” undertaken by many of the Sensis workers, is work directed (at least in part) to the maintenance and operation of the Genesis Computer System and associated computer systems (including the Genesis database) which is accessed or used for a multitude of applications.

(166) Finally, even if it mattered, there is insufficient evidence about who created the Rules themselves. The Rules alone cannot be said to be an author for the purposes of the Copyright Act.

Comments No Comments »

In a short post on his web log yesterday, Lorcan Dempsey remarked on how few discussions on bibliographic data and cataloging contain any appeals to evidence, especially on matters of cost and value.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time looking for exactly the same material lately, and my experience of CSI:LIS has been equally frustrating.

The most useful articles on estimating a value for a bibliographic record I’ve found so far were [Mat00] and [Mat01]. Even these articles used a model of value that I’m not entirely comfortable with – I was looking for a more marginal approach that could be used to estimate the economic effect of rule changes in terms of deltas to recall, precision, and cost of indexing.

I asked Don King if he could suggest any recent papers on the topic, and he looked sad too.

In other areas of the disciple there does seem to be more support for the practice of Evidence Based Librarianship (EBL); indeed the field now has its own journal – Evidence Based Library and Information Practice [EBLIP].

There is also an annual conference (called unimaginatively The International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference). The 4th conference in the series was hosted by UNC Chapel Hill this past May; the conference web site and full papers are available at The next conference is not scheduled until 2009.

There is an EBL wiki at

Despite it’s genesis from the field of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), EBL has yet to spawn its own musical genre. Would Front 245 be a good band name?


[EBLIP] Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, available at
[Mat00] Joe Matthews, The value of information in library catalogs., Information Outlook 4 (2000), 18.
[Mat01] _____, The value of information: The case of the library catalog., Technical Services Quarterly, 19 (2001), no. 2, 1–16.

Comments No Comments »

Treat headings as concepts, not strings

  1. Treating the authorized form of a heading as just one kind of label for a concept allows for the use of other kinds of labels without requiring any changes to bibliographic records.
  2. Translations of the headings into foreign languages allows non-native English speakers to browse more easily.
  3. Bermanization of the headings into regular English allows native speakers to do likewise.

Improve the syndetic structure of the headings

  1. Assign broader terms to all non top-level terms.
  2. Convert BT references that do not correspond to genuine broader terms to plain RT. Where such a change would leave a term orphaned, add a broader reference to a true parent.
  3. Support more types of semantic relationships between terms.

Establish name-like headings using name-like procedures

  1. It is far more expensive to establish entries as Subjects than it is to add entries that are Names.
  2. Names can be established without direct LC intervention, whereas subjects require much more centralizedevaluation.
  3. Examples of name-like headings include(a) Fictitious characters.(b) Famous animals.(c) Models of calculators.

Establish patterns, rather than instances of patterns

  1. Creating explicit patterns in a machine processable form can greatly reduce the number of headings that need to be separately established.
  2. Common relationships implied by patterns can be automatically inferred, rather than having to be explicitly enumerated in each case- thus avoiding many inconsistencies in the current headings.
  3. As the syndetic structure of the headings is repaired, constraints upon the types of concepts to which patterns can be applied can automatically be enforced, and implicit patterns embedded in currently established headings detected.

Separate out domain specific vocabularies

  1. If domain specific vocabularies are separated from the general headings, their administration can be distributed to other committees or bodies.
  2. By delegating these vocabularies to domain experts, the headings can be made more specific and better adapted to the needs of communities of practice.
  3. As the syndetic structure is repaired, delegated vocabularies can be anchored to specified broader terms within the general headings, allowing systems that only wish to deal with such general headings to collapse the delegated subtrees to the anchoring term.

Create a wiki-like system for heading maintenance

  1. A social approach to heading maintenance enables a distributed approach to building relationships between terms.
  2. By simplifying the creation of new headings, such a system can encourage the use of specific, narrow headings.
  3. As long as these proposed headings are linked to established broader terms, they can be treated by systems only wishing to deal with established terms as if they were the broader terms.
  4. If subject headings are stored as links, rather than strings, rejected headings can be converted to those which achieve currency.
  5. Any social system for headings must track the provenance of proposed headings, and clearly distinguish between established and non-established terms.

Comments Comments Off

Support standards that scale beyond the catalog

  1. Move away from library-specific formats.
  2. Move towards general standards, such as Dublin Core, CIDOC, RDF, SKOS, and OWL.
  3. Design standards to allow ordinary people to create basic records for web sites, articles, etc.
  4. Specify standards in a modular fashion, so that intricacies that only apply to specialized formats such as sheet music do not complicate the description of simpler items, such as novels.

Develop tools to support metadata creation

  1. Automate as much of the task of metadata creation as possible, allowing humans to concentrate on tasks that require deeper semantic understanding.
  2. Develop tools to assist naive users to create valid records.
  3. Develop tools to assist expert users to create better records faster.
  4. Develop algorithmic and heuristic validation routines for as all metadata fields.
  5. Whenever possible, check data against authority files automatically.

Support linked and networked bibliographic data

  1. Support incremental change records.
  2. Maintain references to authorized fields as links rather than strings.
  3. Support multi-leveled compound works, and generalized work clusters.

Comments Comments Off

Support open access to bibliographic data

  1. Bibliographic data are “mere facts”, and thus cannot be copyrighted within the United States.
  2. No financial model predicated on ownership of such records is sustainable.
  3. Claiming ownership of bibliographic records removes them from the realm of the social.
  4. Providing open access to catalog and authority records will encourage their use on the wider Internet.
  5. The Library of Congress is required to charge for its cataloging distribution on a cost recovery basis, even though this cost model is not efficient and harmful to the Library’s larger mission.
  6. Congress should permit the Library to distribute bibliographic records free of charge.

Open cataloging is social cataloging

  1. Under current models of shared cataloging, fees are paid to download copies of individual records.
  2. When errors are detected in these downloaded records, they are typically corrected in the local system only.
  3. Because a fee has been paid to access these records, there is no social obligation felt to contribute corrections back to the source.
  4. Locally changed records are much more expensive to maintain than those which are retained unchanged.
  5. Just as the open source model allows ordinary users to fix and enhance the software they use, open cataloging allows changes to be contributed back to the community, improving the quality of records for all.
  6. Because open cataloging takes place in a social environment, social conventions can be used to solicit improvements in existing records.
  7. As an example, a social catalog can periodically ask a user who is requesting a record, and who has the described item in hand, to cross-check a few select fields.

Metadata should be created at the most appropriate point in the life of its data

  1. Records for books should be created by publishers.
  2. Records for journals should be created by the sponsors.
  3. Records for articles should be created by authors and their institutions.Name authority records should be created as early in an author’s career as possible, for example, on publication of their first article in a peer-reviewed journal.
  4. Authors should be able to update their own authority records.

Comments Comments Off

  1. The purpose of cataloguing is to guide a reader to his book.
  2. Any aspect of cataloguing that does not support this task is superfluous.
  3. Any aspect of cataloguing that inhibits this task is harmful.
  4. A catalogue is a biologically enhanced information retrieval system.
  5. Readers are familiar with other information retrieval systems, and will use the tools which, based on past experience, they believe to be most effective for their needs.
  6. A library may not injure a reader, or through inaction allow a reader to come to harm.

Prologomena :- AI,LIS.


Oops – I messed up the opening pun, turning the obscure into the totally incomprehensible:

Prolog (AI Language) + Prolegomena (to cataloging and classification) = Prologomena, not Prologema

Comments 1 Comment »