Comparison of Key Entities Within Bibliographic Conceptual Models and Implementations: Definitions, Evolution, and Relationships

Authors

  • Michele Seikel
  • Thomas Steele

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.64n2.62

Abstract

With the introduction of FRBR (Functional Requirements of a Bibliographic Record) in 1998, IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutes) introduced a new conceptual entity relationship model. FRBR was soon followed by FRAD (Functional Requirements of Authority Data) and FRSAD (Functional Requirements of Subject Authority Data). With LRM (IFLA Library Reference Model) and two descriptive standards, the RDA Toolkit and BIBFRAME to follow, it helps catalogers to have a greater understanding of the entity relationship models they use for bibliographic description. The authors compare the models and descriptive standards. Differences among the entities, their definitions, and properties are examined and analyzed.

Author Biographies

Michele Seikel

Michele Seikel (michele.seikel@okstate.edu) is the cataloger at Edmon Low Library, Oklahoma State University.

Thomas Steele

Thomas Steele (thomas.d.steele-1@ou.edu) is the Science and Technology Cataloger, University of Oklahoma Libraries.

Downloads

Published

2020-05-08

Issue

Vol. 64 No. 2 (2020): April

Section

Features

License

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after it has been accepted for publication. Sharing can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.