On 1/18/18 5:15 PM, Kyle Banerjee wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> But this gets really head-bangingly hard pretty quickly. Just to say
>> that we should not assume that FRBR actually works with real data - it
>> was never tested as such.
> Which raises the question of why we as a profession pay as much attention
> to it as we do?
> Good models explain the real world and help people clarify things in their
> own minds -- FRBR doesn't qualify.
> Despite countless articles, books, presentations, classes, etc on the
> subject over the past 20 years, FRBR confuses staff of all levels and
> seasoned professionals get bogged down applying it to garden variety
> situations. In a best case scenario, using FRBR to help someone understand
> bibilographic relations is like using OSI to teach someone how web apps
> work -- and I don't think we're looking at a best case scenario.... ;)
*sigh* yes to that. For a relatively short and possibly entertaining
intro to my concerns on this, my SWIB talk  gets into FRBR by about
minute 12, but the preceding minutes help set the context for my
remarks. Of course I also cover it in my book  but that's a longer
account. The elevator pitch is:
FRBR is a mental model of the bibliographic universe that some
catalogers appear to find useful. FRBR, as defined, is NOT a viable data
 http://kcoyle.net/beforeAndAfter/index.html (open access)
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net