 |
 |
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 [1] 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 [2] 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 model. kc [1] http://bit.ly/2n7XbBo [2] http://kcoyle.net/beforeAndAfter/index.html (open access) > > kyle > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600