« FRBR & "Time-Based Media", Part 1 | Main | Grants - lack of feedback »

May 12, 2008

FRBR & "Time-Based Media", Part 2: Clips/Segments

Following on from my previous post about applying the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model to the case of Time-Based Media, this post works through one example, reflecting the requirement to be able to disclose/discover relationships between "whole" videos and segments/clips of those "wholes". While the example I'm sketching here isn't based on my actual experience, I think it is a reasonably realistic one.

Suppose I develop a machinima-based tutorial video introducing some of the features of Second Life for use by undergraduate students new to the application. I might make my tutorial available for streaming using my institution's streaming server, both in Windows Media Video format and in QuickTime format. And I might make a QuickTime version available for download as an alternative to streaming. I might also make a second copy of that QuickTime file - exactly the same content, quality, size etc - available for download from my personal Web site.

From a FRBR viewpoint, I think this would be represented as a single FRBR Work (W01), realized in a single Expression (E01), embodied in three different Manifestations (streamed Windows Media Video (M01), streamed QuickTime (M02) and downloadable QuickTime (M03)), with the first two of these Manifestations each exemplified in a single Item, and the last exemplified in two Items. The relationships between these resources are indicated in Figure 1 below.

Fig1

For the purposes of ths discussion I'm focusing on the FRBR "Group 1" entities (Work, Expression, Manifestation and Item); a full FRBR modelling of the resource would also include various flavours of "responsibility" relationships with Group 2 entities (Persons, Corporate Bodies) and "subject" relationships with Group 3 entities.

Using the FRBR RDFS vocabulary developed by Ian Davis and Richard Newman (I'm using this vocabulary rather than the set of terms defined as part of the Scholarly Works Application Profile project because SWAP defined terms for only a small subset of the FRBR relationship types, and here I need to make use of a wider range of those relationship types), and the Turtle RDF syntax, I'd represent this as something like the following (I'm deliberately focusing here on only the FRBR "Group 1" Work-Expression-Manifestation-Item relationships, and I'm also including the inverse relationships just to be explicit):

@prefix frbr: <http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix ex: <http://example.org/examples/> .

ex:W01
  a frbr:Work ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial" ;
  frbr:realization ex:E01 .

ex:E01
  a frbr:Expression ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial, Version 1.0" ;
  frbr:realizationOf ex:W01 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M01 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M02 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M03 .
 
ex:M01
  a frbr:Manifestation ;
  frbr:embodimentOf ex:E01 ;
  frbr:exemplar ex:I01 .

ex:M02
  a frbr:Manifestation ;
  frbr:embodimentOf ex:E01 ;
  frbr:exemplar ex:I02 .

ex:M03
  a frbr:Manifestation ;
  frbr:embodimentOf ex:E01 ;
  frbr:exemplar ex:I03 ;
  frbr:exemplar ex:I04 .

So far so good. Having made this full tutorial video available, I then create a clip of the original, say, a segment focusing on the graphical preferences in the SL client which covers the topic in such a way as to be useful as a self-contained resource. And I choose to make that clip/segment available only as a download in QuickTime format, from my own server, not from the institutional server. So now we have a second FRBR Work (W02) - there is a significant difference in the content of the two videos - , realized in a single Expression (E02), embodied in a single Manifestation (M04), exemplified in a single Item.

And I can express the fact that there is a relationship between this second Work (my clip on graphical preferences, W02) and the Work corresponding to the original tutorial (W01). I think (but I'm not 100% sure) it would be appropriate to use a whole-part relationship between the two Works here.

And I can also express a whole-part relationship between the two Expressions (E01, E02). This might seem redundant, given the relationship between the two Works, but I think it does add additional information, and hopefully the value of this will become clearer below. For simplicity I'm leaving out the representation of the Items in the diagrams from now on.

Fig2

Or in Turtle:

@prefix frbr: <http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix ex: <http://example.org/examples/> .

ex:W01
  a frbr:Work ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial" ;
  frbr:part ex:W02 ;
  frbr:realization ex:E01 .

ex:W02
  a frbr:Work ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial Segment: Graphics Preferences" ;
  frbr:partOf ex:W01 ;
  frbr:realization ex:E02 .

ex:E01
  a frbr:Expression ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial, Version 1.0" ;
  frbr:realizationOf ex:W01 ;
  frbr:part ex:E02 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M01 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M02 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M03 .

ex:E02
  a frbr:Expression ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial Segment: Graphics Preferences, Version 1.0" ;
  frbr:realizationOf ex:W02 ;
  frbr:partOf ex:E01 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M04 .

Now twelve months on, there is some change to Second Life functionality and I produce a slightly revised, extended version of my tutorial to take this into account. As much of the content remains the same, I think these should probably be modelled as two Expressions (E01, E03) of the same Work (W01), with a hasRevision/isRevisionOf relationship between them. Assuming I make the new version available in the same range of forms as the original, then the relationships between the two versions appear as follows, in Figure 3:

Fig3

Or in Turtle:

@prefix frbr: <http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix ex: <http://example.org/examples/> .

ex:W01
  a frbr:Work ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial" ;
  frbr:realization ex:E01 ;
  frbr:realization ex:E03 .

ex:E01
  a frbr:Expression ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial, Version 1.0" ;
  frbr:realizationOf ex:W01 ;
  frbr:revision ex:E03 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M01 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M02 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M03 .
 
ex:E03
  a frbr:Expression ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial, Version 1.1" ;
  frbr:realizationOf ex:W01 ;
  frbr:revisionOf ex:E01 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M05 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M06 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M07 .

And I also create a new version of the clip on graphics preferences, a new Expression (E04) of my second Work (W02), and this new Expression is a participant in two Expression-Expression relationships:

  • it is a revision of the first Expression (E02) of that Work, and;
  • it is a part of the Expression (E03) corresponding to the new version of the full tutorial

Fig4_2

Or in Turtle:

@prefix frbr: <http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix ex: <http://example.org/examples/> .

ex:W01
  a frbr:Work ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial" ;
  frbr:part ex:W02 ;
  frbr:realization ex:E01 ;
  frbr:realization ex:E03 .

ex:W02
  a frbr:Work ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial Segment: Graphics Preferences" ;
  frbr:partOf ex:W01 ;
  frbr:realization ex:E02 ;
  frbr:realization ex:E04 .

ex:E01
  a frbr:Expression ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial, Version 1.0" ;
  frbr:realizationOf ex:W01 ;
  frbr:part ex:E02 ;
  frbr:revision ex:E03 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M01 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M02 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M03 .
 
ex:E02
  a frbr:Expression ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial Segment: Graphics Preferences, Version 1.0" ;
  frbr:realizationOf ex:W02 ;
  frbr:partOf ex:E01 ;
  frbr:revision ex:E04 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M04 .

ex:E03
  a frbr:Expression ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial, Version 1.1" ;
  frbr:realizationOf ex:W01 ;
  frbr:part ex:E04 ;
  frbr:revisionOf ex:E01 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M05 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M06 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M07 .

ex:E04
  a frbr:Expression ;
  dcterms:title "Second Life Tutorial Segment: Graphics Preferences, Version 1.1" ;
  frbr:realizationOf ex:W02 ;
  frbr:partOf ex:E03 ;
  frbr:revisionOf ex:E02 ;
  frbr:embodiment ex:M08 .

At least, I think that's right :-) But I'd appreciate any feedback on whether that is an appropriate use of the FRBR hasPart/isPartOf relationships (or indeed on any other aspect of that example.)

Finally, I guess there's an alternative scenario in which when I come to update my tutorial I remake it more or less from scratch and I consider it a distinct Work from the original.

Fig5

And if I go on to create a new clip of my new tutorial, I can still indicate the relationships between the clips and their respective wholes as above, but I don't think there is any explicit relationship between the Works correspnonding to the two tutorials, or between the Works corresponding to the two clips (though of course the two Works would have a "created-by" relationship with the same Person, and probably a set of "has-as-subject" relationships with a common set of Concepts).

Fig6_2

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345203ba69e200e5521c61fb8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference FRBR & "Time-Based Media", Part 2: Clips/Segments:

Comments

I'm sorry to say this, but isn't this page and examples a perfect example of what is wrong with FRBR; it's really hard to get it right? I noticed that you use a lot of wordings such as "I think" a lot, and I suspect a lot of the FRBR semantics are what's causing this. It shouldn't be like that; it should be an easy and straight-forward exercise to model these things, otherwise perhaps we shouldn't do it.

I think a sub-comment here is that we shouldn't take the FRBR model as gospel; there might be something fundamentally wrong with them (or at least, the semantics involved of labeling those "things") which might need revising.

I've never been happy with the initial threesome of Work, Expression, Manifestation as "Work" is too vague and "Manifestation" too rigid. In fact I'm tempted to say that they all three are Expressions of some idea(s), where the initial ideas aren't represented (possibly because libraries traditionally haven't been preoccupied with such?) in any way.

Thoughts?

To be fair, some of the tentativeness probably (!) comes from my way of expressing myself! But, yes, I agree that there tends to be an element of interpretation required, and different cataloguers may make different judgements (particularly in terms of differences between Works and Expressions).

Whether FRBR is the "right tool" for this particular problem, I really don't know at this point. I'm just at the stage of trying to see where it does fit some of the scenarios, and where it doesn't, so that we can be clear where the problems lie.

You might be interested in this recent article by Mike Eadie, who is working on one of the "sibling" projects on metadata for still images, and has been through a not dissimilar process

http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue55/eadie/

I agree with Alex that we need to be careful in taking the FRBR model as gospel. I'd also be careful in terms of accepting the definitions of works, expressions, manifestations and items as laid out in the FRBR report (note that Martha Yee has considerable problems with some aspects of the model, since you have used her work to inform yours). I tend to think the basic model is a good one, but I'm not sure I agree with the detail. This is also likely to be an art more than a science - there may not be a right or wrong answer to questions of what is a work, and what is an expression etc. The point of FRBR was to consider the 'functional' requirements, and I think we sometimes lose this perspective in discussions when trying to translate the FRBR report into practice, and end up trying to map things into the model 'correctly' rather than in such a way as to help with the functional perspective.

Anyway, one interesting question that arises for me is your comment towards the end about 'rewriting' the tutorial from scratch. Would this be a new work - I'm not sure. If we think about it in terms of a published textbook, as long as the book was still published as the same item in a new edition, it would count as the same work. I'm not how this might apply to a less formally published work, but lets say if your tutorial was essentially trying to deliver the same teaching points for the same purpose, it might be useful to consider it the same work from the users perspective?

Pete

From my understanding of FRBR your diagrams are correct. Barbara Tillett has a great diagram called 'Family of Works' dealing with the new work vs same work, different expression decision in her 'What is FRBR?' pamphlet[1] (p. 4).

One observation: FRBR defines its entities and gives its examples 'top down', starting with work, and this makes sense in terms of the publishing process, from an idea in a creator's head to an information object. But from the cataloguer's point of view the process works the other way, and we start with an item and extrapolate the other entities from it. I'm not sure if looking at the process from bottom up rather than top down makes any practical difference but I suspect in some cases it might. It's a bit like Kierkegaard's 'life must be lived forwards but understood backwards.'

[1] http://www.loc.gov/cds/FRBR.html

-Irvin

Just came across this http://hdl.handle.net/2142/5254 which considers the problems of what is a FRBR 'item' in a digital context (via the FRBR Blog http://www.frbr.org/2008/05/07/item-in-the-digital-world)

The comments to this entry are closed.

About

Search

Loading
eFoundations is powered by TypePad