This article was published in:

Catalogue and Index, no.148, Summer 2003, pp. 8-11

A NEW DIRECTION FOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORDS?

The development of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
By Ann Chapman and Alan Danskin
This article is in two parts. The first part describes the background and terms of reference for the
study to define the functional requirements of bibliographic records and the main elements of the
proposed model. The second part, which will appear in the next issue of Catalogue and Index, will
examine the practical implications of adapting the model.
Introduction
In August 1990, IFLAs Division of Bibliographic Control organised a Seminar on Bibliographic
Records in Stockholm. This seminar reaffirmed the principles of universal bibliographic control,
endorsed the role of national bibliographic agencies in providing and making available bibliographic
data, and produced a series of supporting recommendations, picking up on emerging considerations
as to whether bibliographic records in their current forms would, or could, accommodate new media,
relationships between versions and expanding user requirements. Recommendation 2a was That a
study be commissioned to define the functional requirements of bibliographic records in relation to the
variety of user needs and the variety of media. [1]
The Study
Following the Stockholm seminar, IFLAs Section on Cataloguing took on responsibility for the study to
define the functional requirements of bibliographic records and was able to report in the autumn of
1991 that some work had begun on the project. [2] The terms of reference, shown below, were drawn
up and for the next few years, further reports from the Section on Cataloguing charted the progress of
the study.
The terms of reference for the study: The purpose of this study is to delineate in clearly defined
terms the functions performed by the bibliographic record with respect to various media, various
applications and various user needs. The study is to cover the full range of functions for the
bibliographic record in its widest sense (i.e. a record that encompasses not only descriptive elements,
but access points (name, title, subject, etc.), other organising elements (classification, etc.) and
annotations. [3]
At the end of 1993, it was reported that a decision had been made to hire consultants to carry out the
study, who would report to a task force set up by the section. [4] Over the lifetime of the study, five
people acted as consultants and seven people formed the task group. A preliminary report was
presented at a Section on Cataloguing session at the 1994 IFLA Conference. In May 1996 a draft
report for world-wide review was published [5] and the final report Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records (FRBR) was presented at the Sections open session during the 1997 IFLA
Conference in Copenhagen. [6] Follow up steps to the study were identified and these included
examining the impact on:
National bibliographic agencies, individual libraries, cataloguing codes and guidelines
ISBD as a whole
Authority control, which is not in the report, should be considered.
Since its publication the report has been discussed at conferences and seminars and work has been
done on mapping FRBR terminology to the MARC format. In 1995 one issue of International
Cataloguing and Bibliographic Control focussed solely on the study and its findings. [7] A Seminar on
FRBR was held in Florence in January 2000 [8], at which a variety of presentations examined FRBR
from different perspectives. Speakers shared a common high regard for the methodology and
resulting conclusions.
References to the study occurred in a number of papers given at the Bicentennial Conference on
Bibliographic Control for the New Millenium [9], and during the session of the Topical Discussion
Group 4A on Multiple Versions. The Topical Discussion Groups made long-term and short-term

recommendations and work on bringing the functional requirements into the development of
cataloguing codes and bibliographic formats formed two of this groups long-term recommendations,
which are:
TDG4A.1 Restructure AACR2 and MARC21 to support display of hierarchical relationships
between records for a work, its expressions and its manifestations. Base this restructuring on
the IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Who: JSC, MARBI, utilities and
system vendors.
TDG4A.2 Explore work/expression identifier on international scale. Base this on other
proposals for universal numbering systems such as that proposed for authority records (e.g.
ISADN) or the International Standard text Code (ISTC).
The group also made 6 short-term recommendations. In the proceedings it was noted that in the
discussion Mary Page, a member of the TDG, said that ultimately, the number of records shouldnt
matter to the user; users shouldnt face record after record for the same content.
Why was the study needed?
Prior to the 1960s catalogue records were commonly held in card catalogues, or in some cases in
guard books and printed catalogues. The initial impetus to making catalogue records machinereadable was to support improved production of printed catalogue cards and bibliographies, and
consequently the bibliographic record format was structured to reproduce the information that was
held in manual catalogue records. The number of access points for card catalogues was limited by the
number of additional cards produced for an item. By moving to machine-readable records, however,
libraries found that it was possible to include more access points and that keyword searching on many
data elements provided new approaches to access.
At the Stockholm Seminar discussion had focussed on the quality and functions of bibliographic
records. One view was that cataloguing could be simplified and that the number of descriptive
elements could be reduced without affecting access. It was also suggested that there could be
economic advantages in distributing the creation of records through the publisher-supplier-library
continuum. An opposing view voiced was that this did not take into account the variety of functions a
bibliographic record was intended to perform, and that it was the addition of authority controlled
access points which raised the cost of cataloguing. With no consensus on record functionality having
been reached, the seminar recommended a study into the issues.
Changing requirements of bibliographic records
A bibliographic record is a collection of pieces of data, which can be grouped into three areas:
descriptive data (author, title, imprint), content data (abstract, summary, table of contents, target
audience, notes) and access data (subject indexing, classification, names of people and corporate
bodies). While all records contain descriptive data, thus identifying items, access data has varied in
form and fullness. Traditionally libraries have included only limited content data, while it appears to a
greater extent in promotion and selection materials and resources.
The catalogue was once a stand-alone resource. Automation not only moved it from solely a print
based resource but also expanded the routes by which it could be searched, facilitated its integration
with other housekeeping functions such as circulation and acquisitions, and provided opportunities for
linked access to complementary resources such as full text files.
Things have changed for the user as well. Where once they had to visit the library in person to consult
the catalogue now OPACs are accessible remotely from office or even from home. Expectations of
what the catalogue can offer have also increased. In the past they wanted the catalogue to tell them:
is Emma by Jane Austen in this library, what titles by Stephen Hawking are in this library and are
there any books on astronomy in this library? And if the answer was yes, they required enough
information to locate the item on the shelves or to request it. They still want the answers to these
questions but now they have other questions such as: where does this title fit in an un-numbered
series, is this title related to another title companion volume, another author taking over a series,
commentary on another work, is there a full text file available and what is its URL? and is this title
available in a format other than standard print?
And what is recorded in catalogues has changed too. Monographs, maps, music scores and serials
are still with us in printed form, but can also be produced in non-book formats spoken word, tactile,
and electronic, while in addition there are all the non-print materials libraries now hold music

recordings, images, kits, realia and electronic files. Relationships between items are more plentiful
and often more complicated now. A manuscript may be available in a digital form. A text may be
transcribed as an electronic braille file which is then used to produce a physical braille volume. Novels
and biographies generate adaptations into plays, musicals, films, operas, and ballets and may or may
not retain the title of the original item.
These are the issues the FRBR study faced. Its intention was to be comprehensive in terms of
material content types, physical media, formats and modes of recording information and it assumed
that a wide range of people use bibliographic records in a variety of applications for a range of
purposes. The study defined the generic tasks as the following:
To Find materials corresponding to stated search criteria (e.g. by an author, on a topic, etc.).
To Identify an item as being that sought or to distinguish between two items with the same
title
To Select an item appropriate to the users needs (e.g. a specific edition, a version in a
specific language, or format).
To Obtain the item (by purchase, request for loan, or access to an on-line resource.
The study used an analytical model known as the Entity-Relationship model. It began by defining the
entities that were of interest to users of bibliographic databases and then charted the relationships of
each entity to other entities.
Entities were viewed as falling into three groups. The first group comprised items of intellectual or
artistic content and was sub-divided into levels labelled work, expression, manifestation and item. The
second group of entities were those responsible for the intellectual or artistic content, sub-divided into
persons and corporate bodies. The third group contained the entities forming the subject of intellectual
or artistic content (including entities in the first two groups), and sub-divided into concepts, objects,
events and places.
Group 1
Work: an abstract entity not represented by a material object. [e.g. Homers Iliad] Revisions, updates,
abridgments or enlargements, additions of parts or accompaniment to a musical composition,
translations, musical transcriptions, and dubbed and sub-titled films are deemed to be expressions of
the same work. It only becomes a new work when there is a significant degree of independent
intellectual or artistic effort as with for example paraphrases, adaptations for children, musical
variations on a theme, dramatizations, abstracts and summaries.
Expression: the realisation of a work in alpha-numeric, musical or choreographic notation, sound,
image, object, movement or any combination of these. Changes in form (e.g. from alpha-numeric to
spoken word) result in a new expression as do translations from one language to another.
Manifestation: the physical embodiment of an expression. Manifestation represents all the physical
objects that bear the same characteristics of content and physical form. A manifestation may be a
single object (an authors manuscript, an original oil painting) or a number of copies of the object. New
manifestations are created when there is a change in physical form (changes in content result in a
new expression). This includes changes in typeface, font size, page layout, physical medium (e.g.
paper to microfilm), and container (change from cassette to cartridge for a tape) as well as changes in
publisher.
Item: a single exemplar of a manifestation. It is a concrete entity, which can be a single physical
object (e.g. a copy of a one-volume monograph) or may comprise multiple physical objects (e.g. a
monograph issued as two separately bound volumes). Defining item as an entity enables the
identification of individual copies of a manifestation and description of characteristics unique to a
particular copy and that relate to transactions such as circulation, etc.
Group 2
Persons: an individual, either living or deceased, involved in the creation or realization of a work (e.g.
authors, composers, artists, editors, translators, performers) or the subject of a work (e.g. subjects of
autobiographies and biographies).

Corporate bodies: an organization or group of individuals and/or organizations acting as a unit. It

includes occasional groups (e.g. meetings and conferences) and territorial authorities. They may be
involved in the creation or realization of a work or be the subject of a work.
Group 3
Concept: an abstract notion or idea that is the subject of a work. It includes fields of knowledge,
schools of thought, theories, processes, etc., and may be broadly or narrowly and precisely defined.
Objects: a material thing that is the subject of a work. It includes animate and inanimate objects
occurring in nature or the product of human creation and objects that no longer exist.
Events: an action or occurrence that is the subject of a work. Events include historical events, epochs
and periods of time.
Places: a location that is the subject of a work. Locations can be terrestrial or extra-terrestrial,
historical or contemporary, and can be geographic features and geo-political jurisdictions.
Each entity type has an associated set of characteristics or attributes. For example the attributes of a
work are its title, form, date, intended audience and context. For musical works there are additional
attributes of medium of performance, numeric designation and key, while cartographic works have the
additional attributes of co-ordinates and equinox. The attributes of a person are name, dates, title and
other designation associated with the person.
Relationships
Entities may be linked by means of relationships. Relationships may only exist between explicitly
identified entities and may operate at different levels.
A work is realised through an expression
An expression is embodied in a manifestation
A manifestation is exemplified by an item
Each of these relationships also operates in the opposite direction, for example, an expression is
defined as the realisation of a work. Thus all expressions of a work are linked through the work.
Relationships also exist between group 1 entities and entities in groups 2 and 3:
A work is created by a person or corporate body
An expression is realised by a person or corporate body
A manifestation is produced by a person or corporate body
An item is owned by a person or corporate body
A work may be linked to any of the other entities, including work itself by the, has subject of
relationship.
References
1. News and Events, International cataloguing and Bibliographic Control, 19(4) Oct/Dec. 1990 p.50
2. Report from the Section on Cataloguing, International cataloguing and Bibliographic Control,
20(4) Oct/Dec. 1991 p.51-52
3. Tillett, Barbara. [FRBR study] Theoretical and practical foundations. International cataloguing and
Bibliographic Control, 24(3) Jul/Sep. 1995 pp.43-44
4. Report from the Section on Cataloguing, International cataloguing and Bibliographic Control,
22(1) Jan/Mar. 1993 pp.8-9
5. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Draft report for world-wide review. IFLA, May
1996
6. Report from the Section on Cataloguing, International cataloguing and Bibliographic Control,
27(1) Jan/Mar. 1998 pp.66-67
7. Whole issue, International cataloguing and Bibliographic Control, 24(3) Jul/Sep. 1995 pp.43-50
8. News and Events, Seminar on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, Florence,
27-28 January 2000. International cataloguing and Bibliographic Control, 29(2) Apr/Jun. 2000
p.35

9. Proceedings of the Bicentennial Conference on Bibliographic Control for the New Millenium.
Washington, D.C., November 2000. Washington: Library of Congress, 2001.
Final report edited by Marie-France Plassard. Published 1998.
Study group: Olivia Madison (chair), John Byrum Jr, Suzanne Jouguelet, Dorothy McGarry, Nancy
Williamson & Maria Witt. [Nancy John chair from Aug. 1993 to Aug. 1995]
Consultants: Tom Delsey, Elizabeth Dulabahn, Elaine Svenonius & Barbara Tillett. [Also Ben Tucker
June 1992 June 1993.]
Website: An FRBR website will be launched soon on IFLANET www.ifla.org .