“FRBRization” is not FRBRization

It continues to frustrate me that the term “FRBRization” and “FRBR” is used to mean “grouping records into work sets”, “collocating records for the work”. I hear this over and over again at ELUNA here.

There is much more to the FRBR model than work set grouping. Simply by clustering your records in work sets, you have not moved your records into the FRBR model. FRBR is a complete data model that is a new way of looking at our data, not just taking existing records and identifying work relationships.

Can we somehow please stop calling work set clustering “FRBRization”?  You know what a good term for it is? How about “work set clustering”.

Please! Calling nothing more than work set clustering “FRBRization” is hiding the true meaning and power of FRBR. People are confused about what FRBR is, and refering to something that is NOT FRBR as “FRBR” is not helping.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to “FRBRization” is not FRBRization

  1. ksclarke says:

    This is one of my pet peeves too… doing this is very common in library-land for some reason.

  2. jrochkind says:

    I think the reason is clear: Most people don’t understand what FRBR is.

  3. Jon Stroop says:

    ++! I think another reason is that we are all in a race to mine information out of our data that, arguably, isn’t completely there in the first place. So instead vendors resort to silly things like sorting by media and then calling it ‘FRBRization’ so that they can sell their product (and the idea that they’ve cracked the problem) to the aforementioned “people [who] don’t understand what FRBR is”.

  4. Kelley McGrath says:

    Yes, I think whether the data is really there is a good question. And even if it is there, how reliable is it and is it in a form that can be usefullly manipulated for this kind of application?

    OLAC currently has a project (http://www.olacinc.org/capc/movingimagework.html) to investigate what a work-level record for moving images might actually look like and one aspect of that project is trying to see how much we might be able to get out of our current bib records. Preliminary results suggest some things, but not as much as we would like and also that it might be useful to rethink how we’re inputting our data if we do want to be able extract the work-level info later.

  5. ++ There’s just no way around the fact that understanding FRBR and FRAD requires study/thinking time. But I have to say it’s not just theoretical. I’ve been putting in some quality time with FRBR lately and it’s helped me a lot with some of the planning for the data model for our digital library.

  6. Missy says:

    In response to “one of my pet peeves:”

    A peeve is something that irks you. A pet peeve is like teacher’s pet. There can only be one. It is the one thing in all the world that is your biggest peeve; in other words, a pet peeve. Therefore, the very commonly-used term “one of my pet peeves” is incorrect. One can have only one pet peeve. All others are just peeves.

  7. jrochkind says:

    So is the phrase ‘pet peeve’ mis-used your pet peeve, Missy?

    But I don’t see why I can’t have more than one pet peeve. Some people have a cat and a dog and a fish, after all. And can’t a teacher even have two pets?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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