什么是FRBR，我今天弄明白了

FRBR

FRBR is short for Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, the title of a document released in 1998 by IFLA, the International Federation of Library Associations. FRBR specifies a data model for organizing bibliographic databases (who-wrote-what), as opposed to library catalogs (inventories of books). It should be possible to apply these principles to discography databases as well, including MusicBrainz.

FRBR是“书目记录的功能需求”四个单词首写字母的缩写，“书目记录的功能需求”是由IFLA在1998年所发布的一篇文档的题目，IFLA是国际图书馆协会联合会。书目记录的功能需求详细说明了一个数据模型，该模型用来组织著书目录的数据库（谁―写了―什么），这个模型与图书馆目录完全不同。该模型的原则可能应用到某个歌手、音乐家或团队的录音作品目录中，其中包括MusicBrainz数据库。

 

What it says

FRBR specifies a data model consisting of three groups of entities:

FRBR详细说明了一个数据模型，该模型由下面三个实体组组成：

第一组实体：作品、内容表达、载体表现、单件

u       Products, i.e. books, films and records. These follow a hierarchy of four entities:

n         Works, e.g. the novel Robinson Crusoe by Defoe

n         Expressions, e.g. the written novel, a translation, a film script based on the novel, an illustrated abridged version for children

n         Manifestations, e.g. a print edition of this translation of that novel

n         Items or physical copies, worn and torn, one of three held by your local library, each having a unique inventory number

 

u       产品：即书，电影和记录。这些由下面四个实体组成

n         作品：例如笛福所写的《鲁宾逊漂流记》

n         内容的表达：例如小说，一个译稿，一个基于某部小说的电影剧本，一个为儿童改编的画刊。

n         载体的表现：例如小说译本的打印稿

n         单件：或者叫作实际的拷贝，worn，torn，你当地的图书馆持有这三种中的一个，每种都有一个唯一的目录编号。

图1 第一个实体组不同实体之间的关系

    图中描述的关系说明，一部作品可以通过一个或多个内容表达来实现（因而用作品到内容表达连线的双箭头表示）。另一方面，一个内容表达是一部且只是一部作品的实现（因而用内容表达到作品连线的反向单箭头表示）。一个内容表达可以体现于一个或多个载体表现；同样，一个载体表现可以体现一个或多个内容表达。一个载体表现又可以以一个或多个单件为代表；但一个单件可以代表一个且可代表一个载体表现。

 

第二组实体：个人、团体

People or corporate bodies (i.e. artists, groups, record companies) responsible for each entity of a product, e.g. the author of a story, the translator, the printer, the publisher, the library that owns a copy。

人或者合作团体（也就是说艺术家，团体，记录公司）等负责每个产品的实体，例如一个故事的作者，一位翻译家，出版商，负责保管某个拷贝的图书馆。

第三组实体代表一组附加的实体，它们表达作品的主题。该组实体包括概念（一个抽象的观念或思想）、实物（一种物质的事物）、事件（一个行动或一件发生的事情）和地点（一处场所）

图3 第三组实体与“主题”的关系

    第三组实体代表一组附加的实体，它们表达作品的主题。该组实体包括概念（一个抽象的观念或思想）、实物（一种物质的事物）、事件（一个行动或一件发生的事情）和地点（一处场所）。一部作品可以有一个或多个概念、实物、事物和/地点作为它的主题。反之，一个概念、实物、事件和/或地点可以是一部或多部作品的主题。

图3还描绘了作品和第一及第二组实体之间的“主题”关系。图示说明，一部作品可以有一个或多个作品、内容表达，载体表现、单件、个人和/或团体作为它的主题。

    第二组实体代表那些对第一组实体的知识或艺术内容、物质生产与传播或者保管负有责任的对象。第二组实体包括个人（一个个体的人）和团体（一个组织或一群个人和/或组织）

图2 第二组实体与“责任”的关系

    图2描绘了存在于第二组实体与第一组实体之间的“责任”关系类型。图示说明，一部作品可以由一个或多个个人和/或一个或多个团体创作。反之，一个个人或一个团体可以创作一部或多部作品。一个内容表达可以由一个或多个个人和/或团体实现，一个个人或团体可以实现一个或多个内容表达。一个载体表现可以由一个或多个个人或团体生产；一个个人或团体可以生产一个或多个载体表现。一个单件可以由一个或多个个人和/或团体拥有；一个个人或团体可以拥有一个或多个单件。

 

 

 

 

 

第三组实体：概念、实物、事件、地点

Subjects, e.g. events and places where the story takes place, the date when the book was printed, etc.

主题：例如事件以及故事发生的地点，书籍被印刷的日期

 

History

Despite this spec being almost a decade old, nobody in the library world has really implemented it yet. It is on the verge of becoming the "flying car" of library catalogs, a utopian dream never fulfilled. The Library of Congress catalog is still structured as a bunch of MARC records, which is little more than a 1960s digital equivalent of a 19th century card catalog. One reason for this delay is that FRBR doesn't specify who is going to do the job, it only says how it ought to be done. (And then the Y2K bug and dotcom crisis got in between.) Traditionally every library has a catalog of the books it owns. The idea that information about books (bibliography) could be separated from the local inventory was all new to libraries in the 1960s, when cooperative institutions like OCLC were born. With time these co-ops have started to act more and more like private monopoly suppliers that libraries depend on but really hate. Here, have some bibliographic data, the first samples are free, then you have to pay your soul, and we will supply your institution for the rest of its life. Throw in a lifetime subscription to the Encyclopædia Britannica as well.

Enter the 21st century and Wikipedia. The common knowledge needs not be owned by a monopoly supplier. Every private music collector and library can keep their local inventory in the shape of links to existing, shared information at MusicBrainz. Find an error, fix it in the shared pool, not in your local inventory. This is how OCLC and Gracenote work. Except that no single entity owns Wikipedia or MusicBrainz, because the contents can be copied freely by anybody. This answers the who question.

Fortunately, Wikipedia and MusicBrainz were created not by the tired old people who wrote the FRBR specification, but by fresh minds from the filesharing generation. Even if this means some shortcomings in the initial data model (just albums, tracks, and artists), leaving plenty of room for improvement, the important difference is that they are getting the job done, as opposed to just theorizing about it.