Research Highlights: Cataloging Theory ISO Graph Theory ...



Working Paper

Research Highlights: Cataloging Theory in Search of Graph Theory and Other Ivory Towers.

Object: Cultural Heritage Resource Description Networks

Ronald J. Murray and Barbara B. Tillett

A research project by Library of Congress (LC) staff is bringing cataloging theory into the 21st Century by infusing powerful ideas from the sciences and or mathematics. Barbara Tillett (Chief of the Policy and Standards Division, Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access Directorate) and Ronald Murray (a Digital Conversion Specialist in the Preservation Reformatting Division) are reexamining institutionally-centered resource description processes – called “cataloging” in Cultural Heritage institutions (libraries, archives, and museums). Instead of designing data formats and databases for data/metadata collection like technologists pursuing bottom-up World Wide Web and Semantic Web initiatives, Tillett and Murray are taking a complementary, top-down, approach.

They are investigating how catalogers, other Cultural Heritage information workers, World Wide Web/Semantic Web technologists, and the general public have understood, explained, and managed their resource description tasks by creating, counting, measuring, classifying, and otherwise arranging descriptions of Cultural Heritage resources within the Bibliographic Universe and beyond it. The project grew out of Murray’s 2003 graduate Communication Theory research, which treated libraries as nodes in communications networks. Now the two focus on describing what enlargements of cataloging theory and practice are required such that catalogers and other interested parties can describe pages from unique, ancient codices as readily as they might describe information elements and patterns in the World Wide Web.

Tillett and Murray enhance cataloging theory with concepts from Communications Theory, History of Science, Graph Theory, Computer Science, and from the hybrid of Anthropology and Mathematics called Ethnomathematics. Their development and dispersion of advanced resource description theories and practices is intended to benefit two groups:

• Workers in the Cultural Heritage realm, who will acquire a broadened perspective on their resource description activities, who will be better prepared to handle new forms of creative expressions as they appear, and will also be able to shape the development of information systems that support more sophisticated types of resource descriptions and ways of exploring those descriptions. Note: To build a better bookshelf (perhaps an n-dimensional, n-connected bookshelf?), one needs better theories about shelves and the people or groups who stock and choose from them.

• The full spectrum of people who draw upon Cultural Heritage resources: scholars, and other creatives (novelists, poets, visual artists, musicians, etc.), professional & technical workers, and; K-12, undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate learners, and other persons or groups in pursuit of specific or general, long- or short-term interests, entertainment, etc.

Tillett and Murray argue that applying a multidisciplinary perspective to the processes by which resource description “data” (linked or otherwise) is created and used is not an Ivory Tower exercise. Their approach draws lessons from the very intensive debates that were conducted by physicists, engineers/software developers, and their historian and philosopher of science observers during the evolution of High-Energy Physics.[i] The debates covered theory and observational/experimental data, roles of theorists, experimenters, and instrument builders, instrumentation, and over hardware/software system design.

Noting that these physics research facilities are the same ones whose scientific subcultures (theory, experiment, and instrument building) generated the data creation, management, analysis, and publication requirements that resulted in the World Wide Web, Tillett and Murray assert that Cultural Heritage resource description – i.e., the process of identifying and describing phenomena in the Bibliographic Universe as opposed to the physical one –– should be as open to the concepts and practices of 21st Century physics subcultures as it had been to those of the natural sciences in the 19th Century.[ii] Instead of focusing on scientific data management systems and the “mini resource description theories” used to construct them, Tillett and Murray instead undertook an intensive study of the scientific subcultures that generate scientific data – and identified four key principles upon which to base a more general approach to resource description:

• Observations

• Complementarity

• Graphs

• Exemplars

The Cultural Heritage resource description theory being developed proposes a more articulated view of the complex, collaborative process of making available – through their descriptions – socially relevant Cultural Heritage resources at a global scale. A broader understanding of this resource description process (and the ability to create improved implementations of it) requires integrating ideas from other fields of study.

I. Cataloging as Observation

• Cataloging is a process of making observations on resources.

Tillett and Murray honor the scientific community for their outstanding success in describing the (physical) Universe by introducing into the Bibliographic Universe the concept of an observation:

The action or an act of observing scientifically; esp. the careful watching and noting of an object or phenomenon in regard to its cause or effect, or of objects or phenomena in regard to their mutual relations (contrasted with experiment). Also: a measurement or other piece of information so obtained; an experimental result.[iii]

• Human or computational observers following institutional business rules (i.e., the terms, facts, definitions, and action assertions that represent constraints on an enterprise and on the things of interest to the enterprise[iv]) create resource descriptions – accounts or representations of a person, object, or event being drawn upon by a person, group, institution, etc. in pursuit of its interests:

[pic]

Figure 1. A Resource Description Modeled As A Business Rule-Constrained Account Of A Person, Object, Or Event

Given this definition, a person (or a computation) operating from a business rules-generated institutional or personal point of view, and executing specified procedures (or algorithms) to do so, is an integral component of a resource description process. This process involves identifying a resource’s textual, graphical, acoustic, or other features, and then classifying, making quality and fitness for purpose judgments, etc. upon the resource. Knowing which institutional or individual points of view are being employed is essential when parties possessing multiple views on those resources describe Cultural Heritage resources. How multiple resource descriptions derived from multiple points of view are to be related to one another becomes a key theoretical issue with significant practical consequences.

II. Niels Bohr’s Complementarity Principle and the Library

• Cultural Heritage resource descriptions can document multiple overlapping, and complementary views on Cultural Heritage resources.

In recognizing the validity and value of multiple ways of describing bibliographic and other resources, Tillett and Murray’s resource description theory pays homage to the physicist Niels Bohr, who in 1927 posed a radical explanation for seemingly contradictory observations of physical phenomena.[v] According to Bohr, creating descriptions of nature is the primary task of the physicist:

“It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.[vi]”

Bohr’s complementarity principle states that a complete description of atomic-level phenomena requires descriptions of both wave and particle properties. This is generally understood to mean that in the normal language that physicists use to communicate experimental results, the wholeness of nature is accessible only through the embrace of complementary, contradictory, and paradoxical descriptions of it. Later in his career, Bohr vigorously affirmed his belief that the complementarity principle was not limited to Quantum Physics:

“In general philosophical perspective, it is significant that, as regards analysis and synthesis in other fields of knowledge, we are confronted with situations reminding us of the situation in quantum physics. Thus, the integrity of living organisms, and the characteristics of conscious individuals, and most of human cultures, present features of wholeness, the account of which implies a typically complementary mode of description… We are not dealing with more or less vague analogies, but with clear examples of logical relations which, in different contexts, are met with in wider fields.[vii]”

Within a library, there are many things catalogers, conservators, and preservation scientists – each with their distinctive skills, points of view, and business rules – can say about Cultural Heritage resources.[viii] Much of what these specialists say and do strongly impacts library users’ ability to discover, access, and use library resources in their original or surrogate forms. A fuller appreciation of these resources calls for the integration of these multiple views – or voices – into an articulated, accessible whole.

Reflecting Tillett’s and Murray’s joint LC Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access (ABA) Directorate and Preservation Directorate worldview, the most fundamental complementary views on Cultural Heritage resources involve describing a library’s resources in terms of their information content – an iconic activity – and in terms of their physical properties – an activity less well known. In the normal languages used to communicate their results, Preservation Directorate conservators make condition assessments and record physical measurements of items – while at the same time preservation scientists have instrumentation are on hand to acquire optical and chemical data from submitted materials and from reference collections of physical and digital media. Even though these assessments and measurements may not be comprehensible by or accessible to most Library users, they possess a critical logical relationship to bibliographic and other descriptions of those same resources. This is because decisions regarding a resource’s fitness for purpose, it’s reformatting, and its long-term preservation must take into account the physical characteristics of the resource.

Having things to say about Cultural Heritage resources – and having many “voices” with which to say them – presents the problem of creating a well-articulated context for library-generated resource descriptions as well as those from other sources. Murray and Tillett assert that these contextualization issues must be addressed theoretically prior to implementation-level thinking, and that the demands of contextualization require visualization tools to complement the narratives common to catalogers, scholars, and other users. This is where mathematics and ethnomathematics make their entrance.

Ethnomathematics is the study of the mathematical practices of specific cultural groups over the course of their daily lives and as they deal with familiar and novel problems.[ix] An ethnomathematical perspective on Cultural Heritage resource description directs attention to the construction of simple and complex resource descriptions, the patterns of descriptions created, and the representation of these patterns when they are interpreted as expressions of mathematical ideas. One advantage of operating from an Ethnomathematical perspective is realizing that mathematical ideas can be expressed within a (sub)culture prior to their having been identified and treated formally by Western-style mathematicians.

III. Resource Description as Graph Creation

• Relationships between Cultural Heritage resource descriptions can be represented as conceptually engaging and flexible, systems of connections mathematicians call Graphs.

The researchers argue that a full appreciation of key mathematical ideas underlying the evolution of cataloging was only possible after the founding, naming, and expansion of one field of mathematics (Graph Theory from the 1850’s on), and the eventual acceptance circa 1900 of Set Theory, a field founded amid intense controversy in 1874. Between the emergence of this possibility and it’s actual exploitation by cataloging theorists – or by anyone capable of considering library resource description and organization problems from a mathematical perspective – rested a gulf of more than 100 years. It remained for scholars in the library world to begin addressing the issue. Notably, Tillett’s 1987 work on bibliographic relationships[x] and Svenonius’ 2000 definition of bibliographic entities in set-theoretic terms[xi] identified mathematical ideas in cataloging theory and developed them formally. By 2009, Murray and Tillett proceeded to employ graph theory (expressed in set-theoretical terms and in its highly informative graphical representation) as part of a broader historical and cultural analysis.[xii] Their investigations indicate that the increasingly formalized and refined rules that guided Anglo-American catalogers had, by 1876, specified sophisticated systems of cross-references (i.e., connections between bibliographic descriptions of works, authors, and subjects) – systems whose characteristics were not the subject of formal mathematical treatment by mathematicians of the time.

Cataloging theory had by 2009 haltingly embarked upon a new view on (a.) how resources in libraries have been described and arranged via their descriptions – an activity which in principle stretches back to catalogs in the Library of Alexandria,[xiii] and (b.) how these structured resource descriptions have evolved over time, irrespective of implementation. Their investigations indicate that the increasingly formalized and refined rules that guided Anglo-American catalogers had, by 1876, specified sophisticated systems of cross-references (i.e., connections between bibliographic descriptions of works, authors, and subjects) – systems whose characteristics were not the subject of formal mathematical treatment by mathematicians of the time.[xiv] Murray and Tillett found that library some resource description structures circa 1875 (circa 1875) – when teased out of their book and card catalog implementations and treated as graphs – are arguably more sophisticated than many employed in or proposed by the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Library Linked Data initiative.[xv]

Theory-Guided Implementation – The researchers note that cataloging theory has been both helped and hindered by the use of Information Technology (IT) techniques like Entity-Relationship modeling (E-R, first used extensively by Tillett in 1987 to identify bibliographic relationships in cataloging records) and Object-Oriented (OO) modeling.[xvi] They note that E-R and OO modeling may be used effectively to create information systems from an preestablished inventory of ‘things of interest’ and the relationships that exist among them. Unfortunately, the ‘things of interest’ in Cultural Heritage institutions keep changing and may require redefinition and/or aggregation. E-R and OO modeling as usually practiced are not designed to manage the degree and kind of chances that take place.

Murray and Tillett assert that when trying to figure out what’s ‘out there’ in the Bibliographic Universe, focus should first be placed on identifying and describing the things of interest, what relationships exist among them, and what processes are involved in creation, etc. of resource descriptions. Having accomplished this, attention can then be safely paid to defining and managing information deemed essential to the enterprise (i.e., undertaking IT system analysis and design). But if an IT-centric modeling technique becomes the bed upon which the resource description theory itself is constructed, the resulting theory will be driven in a direction that is strongly determined by the modeling technique used.

Describing The Bibliographic Universe with Graphs

To appreciate their mathematical power and their many applications in the physical sciences, engineering – and especially in Computer Science – the researchers and then shaped their investigations into graph theory and its history[xvii] to their perception of thee needs of the Cultural Heritage realmcommunity. Ever since its 19th Century foundations were established (though scholars regularly date its origins from Euler’sa 1736 paper published in 1736), and its ascension move from the backwaters of recreational mathematics to full field status of mathematics by 1936, graph theory has concerned itself with the properties of systems of connections – nowadays expressed in the form of the mathematical objects called sets.[xviii] In addition to its set notational form, graphs are also depicted and manipulated in diagrammatic form as dots/labeled nodes linked by labeled or unlabeled, simple or arrowed lines. For example, the graph X, consisting of one set of nodes labeled A, B, C, D, E, and F and one set of edges labeled AB, BD, DE, EF, and FC, can be depicted in set notation as X = {{A B C D E F}, {AB BD DE EF FC}} and can be depicted diagrammatically as:

[pic]

Figure 2. A Diagrammatic Representation Of Set X

When graphs are defined to represent different types of nodes and relationships, it becomes possible to create and discuss structures that can support Cultural Heritage resource description theory and application building. Like most forms of mathematics, graph theory’s possibilities require restriction to the task at hand. Lacking a graph-theoretical approach attentive to constraints and demands arising from and constrained by a tacit or explicit resource description theory and/or practice, graph structures favored by an institution’s system designers and developers – or those familiar to and favored by implementation-oriented communities – may be invoked inappropriately.

The following diagrams depict simple resource description graphs based on real-world bibliographic descriptions. Nodes in the graphs represent text, numbers, or dates and relationships that can be unidirectional or bidirectional.

|[pic] |

Figure 3. Library of Congress Catalog Data for Thomas Pynchon’s Novel Gravity’s Rainbow, Represented as an All-In-One Graph Labeled C

The all-in-one resource description graph in fig. 3 can be divided up and connected according to the kinds of relationships that have been defined for Cultural Heritage resources. This is the point where institutional, group, and individual ways of describing resources determine the final structure of the graph. Once constructed, graph structures and their diagrammatic representations are then further interpreted in terms of a tacit or explicit resource description theory. In the case of graphs constructed to IFLA’s Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records standard,[xix] fig. 3 can be subdivided into four FRBR sub-graphs, as to yieldin fig. 4.

|[pic] [pic] |

|[pic] [pic] |

Figure 4. The All-In-One Graph in Figure 3, Separated Into Four FRBR

Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item Graphs

The four diagrams depict catalog data as four complementary FRBR W|E|M|I (W–Work, E–Expression, M–Manifestation and I–Item) graphs. Note that the Item graph contains the call numbers (used here to identify the location of the copy) of three physical copies of the novel. This use of call numbers is qualitatively different from the values found in the Manifestation graph, in that resource descriptions in this graph apply to the entire population of physical copies printed on that occasion.

The descriptions contained in fig. 3’s FRBR sub-graphs reproduce bibliographic characteristics demonstrated found to be useful to by catalogers, scholars, other educationally oriented end-users, and to some varying to extents the public in general. Once created, resource description graphs and sub-graphs (in mathematical notation or in simple diagrams like the above) can proliferate and link in multiple and complex ways– in parallel with or independently of the resources they describe. Figure 4’s diagrammatic simplicity becomes problematic when large quantities of resources are to be described, when the number and kind of relationships recorded grows large, and when more comprehensive but less detailed views of bibliographic relationships are desired. To address these problems in a comprehensive fashion, Murray examined similar situations in the sciences and borrowed another idea from the Physics community – Paper Tools.

Paper Tools

Paper tools are collections of symbolic elements (diagrams, characters, etc.), whose construction and manipulation follow set rules and constraints.[xx] Berzelian chemical notation (e.g., C6H12O6) and – more prominently – Feynman diagrams[xxi] like those in fig. 5 are examples of paper tools creation and use.

[pic]

Figure 5. Feynman Diagrams Of Elementary Particle Interactions

Creating a paper tool requires that the rules for creating resource descriptions be reflected in diagram elements, properties of diagram elements, and rules that define how diagram/symbolic elements are connected to one another (e.g., the formula C6H12O6 specifies six molecules of Carbon, twelve of Hydrogen, and six of Oxygen). For a FRBR paper tool, the detailed bibliographic information in fig. 4 is progressively schematized in a way that reflects FRBR’s definitions of bibliographic things of interest and their relevant relationships. First, the four W|E|M|I descriptions in fig. 4 are given a common identity by linking them to a C node, as in fig. 6.

|[pic] |

Figure 6. A FRBR Resource Description Graph

The diagram is then further schematized such that FRBR description types and relationships are represented by appropriate graphical elements and properties, and then connected to other elements. For Murray, a FRBR paper tool makes it much easier to construct and examine complex large-scale properties of resource and resource description structures like fig. 7 (right side) without being distracted by text and link detail.

| |Or [pic] |

| | |

|[pic] | |

Figure 7. A FRBR Paper Tool Diagram Element (Left) and the Less Schematic

FRBR Resource Description Graph It Depicts (Right)

The resource being described (but not shown) by in the less schematic FRBR graph is represented explicitly by a black dot in a circular slot in by the more schematic paper tool diagram versionto the left. Resource descriptions are represented inn a fixed color and position order relative to the resource/slot: the Work-level resource description is represented by a blue box, Expression by a green box, Manifestation by a yellow box, and Item by a red box. Attentive Depicting one aspect of theto the FRBR model graphically, the descriptions closest to the black dot resource/slot are the most concrete and those furthest away the most abstract. To minimize unnecessary diagram elements when use whena pairs of W|E|M|I boxes touch, the appropriate FRBR linking relationship for those the relevant descriptions elements (as shown in the expanded graph) is implied but not shown.

With appropriate diagramming conventions, the process of exploring resource descriptions complexes addressing combined issues of cataloging theory and institutional policy – results in an ability to make better-informed judgments/computations about the utility of a resource description and its referenced resource(s).:

• Identification of the entire graph and, as needed, individual WEMI nodes and relationships within the Bibliographic Universe (e.g., URI, owner, name, etc.)

• Identifying and describing the voice(s) creating the description (e.g., a Library of Congress cataloger, the author Thomas Pynchon, a LibraryThing member, etc.)

• Specifying description fit, intended audience, rights statements for the description (e.g., extent of the fit, certainty of the describer, description limited to in-house audience, etc.).

• Other housekeeping information such as date of description, intended duration, etc.

Unlike most of their implemented counterparts, resource description graphs can are readily transformable be transformed to serve theoretical – and with greater experience in thinking and programming along graph-friendly lines, practical – ends. One example of this would be exploring the implications of removingal of redundant portions of related resource descriptions as more copies of the same work are identified brought to the Bibliographic Universe:

| |Or [pic] |

| | |

|Copy #1 | |

|[pic] | |

| + | |

| |Or [pic] |

|Copy #2 At | |

|Ft. Meade | |

|[pic] | |

| = |

|[pic] |Or [pic] |

Figure 8. FRBR Paper Tool Diagram Elements and the FRBR Resource Description Graphs They Depict

The FRBR paper tool and less schematic resource description graph diagrams in fig. 8 present the results of a practical action: combining resource descriptions for two copies of the same edition of the novel Gravity’s Rainbow.

Paper Tools, Exemplars, And Library Linked Data

With the four principles (observations, complementarity, graphs, and exemplars) to guide them, Murray and Tillett are alert for opportunities to offer their informed approach and the graph-based information structures they have identified or devised to guide the development of future library information systems. The researchers assert that recent efforts by the W3C Library Linked Data incubation group (LLD XG)[xxii] to establish a supportive historical context for its data interoperability initiative can be an early beneficiary of their research.

The LLD XG initiative operates from an avowedly bottom-up, implementation-oriented perspective – encouraging the reorientation of library metadata models, standards and protocols, etc, towards those being developed for the Semantic Web.[xxiii] A recent report from this group claimeds “success” in having created library-relevant standards following the W3C model,[xxiv] but lamenteds the perceived slow rate of adoption of Web-type technologies and attitudes towards data collection and use.[xxv] As part of their argument for speeding up the adoption of the W3C’s Resource Description Format (RDF[xxvi]), resource description standard, they invoke Thomas Kühn’s concept of a paradigm:

“Translators of legacy library standards into Linked Data must recognize that Semantic Web technologies are not merely variants of practices but represent a fundamentally different way to conceptualize and interpret data. … digital data in libraries has been managed predominantly in the form of ‘records’ -- bounded sets of information described in documents with a precisely specified structure -- in accordance with what may be called a Record Paradigm. The Semantic Web and Linked Data, in contrast, are based on a Graph Paradigm. In graphs, information is conceptualized as a boundless ‘web’ of links between resources … In the Graph Paradigm, the ‘statement’ is an atomic unit of meaning that stands on its own and can be combined with statements from many different sources to create new graphs -- a notion ideally suited for the task of integrating information from multiple sources into recombinant graphs.[xxvii]”

Tillett and Murray think that the LLD initiative has reached a key stage in its efforts. There is clearly an interest on the part of LLD XG implementation-focused technologists to place their data-oriented standards and software development program in a larger conceptual and technical context. They chose to framed the issue within a scientific context by calling upon a common interpretation of Thomas S. Kühn’s work on the development of scientific theories (i.e., “normal science,” “revolutionary science,” [xxviii]) and to advanced theira “Record Paradigm” vs. “Graph Paradigm” argument. Unfortunately, Kühn’s use of that term clouds the picture.

Which Paradigm?

The Library Linked Data Working incubator gGroup invoked the term “paradigm” to imply a historical process by which the “Record Paradigm” will (or should) be displaced by the “Graph Paradigm.” From their analysis, tThe normal practice of placing conceptualizing and implementing bibliographic information in as records s iswill/should correspondingly to be displaced by a revolutionary practice involving conceptualization and implementation in RDF triples. This It turns out that during a conference focused on his ground-breaking work on scientific progress, historians and philosophers of science criticized Kühn layering too many meanings – according to Elizabeth Masterman, twenty-one[xxix] – onto the word “paradigm.

Masterman then sorted her set of Kühn’s senses of paradigm into three classes[xxx] – each of which happens to be relevant describing the current situation in Cultural Heritage institutions. Interestingly, many of Kühn’s many meanings of the word were touched upon in the LLD XG report.[xxxi] Some Many of Kühn’s senses of the word engage institutional missions and managerial issues, andwith a smaller quantity which falling more naturally within the scope of a group tasked with focusing on defininginvestigating data formats and datasetsrelated technologies.

• Metaphysical Paradigms – Claims about new vs. old ways of seeing, critiques of governing beliefs (towards(re: catalogers, cataloging practices, catalogers, and their data products)) fall into this category.

• Sociological Paradigms – Attempts to determine and speed the rate of adoption of Web innovations in the library world would collect here. Analysis of an existingInnovation adoption studies in IT environments social system – through observation, advise and consent, or by directly adjusting the factors that affect the rate of innovation adoption – arehave typically been performed by managerially business sanctioned, or sociologically inclined focused parties operating under aa “Diffusion of Innovations” paradigm.,[xxxii] as opposed to technologists tasked with introducing a data standard.

• Artifact Paradigms – Creation, update and/or replacement of classic cataloging works, rulebooks, textbooks, and physical & mental tools constitute the most concrete sense of the term. Being the most concrete, tThese are information products within which standards are defined and documented and from which old and new data models, schema, etc., emanate and contend. Creation, modification, and use use of data structures, IT architectures, etc. that implement cataloging/resource description rules are involve roles enacted by data and application-focused library world technologists in varying roles.

Exemplars, Not Paradigms – Kühn, acknowledging that the paradigm concept he introduced had taken on a life of its own, continued to engage elaborate upon the runaway concept, but introduced the concept of an Exemplar to describe what he really meant the first time. To Kühn, exemplars are sets of concrete problems and solutions encountered over the course of one’s education, the solution of which requires mastery of relevant models, builds knowledge bases, and hones problem-solving skills. Every student in a field is expected to demonstrate mastery by engaging theira field’s exemplars. – with exemplars being added to the set as new puzzles appear and are solved.

To Tillett and Murray, their program of identifying, developing, and making Cultural Heritage resource description exemplars available for analysis and discussion reflects Kühn’s original interest in describing how science is practiced, taught, and learned and how the theyteaching changes over time.

They seek results that can be implemented across differing technologies. Cultural Heritage Resource Description Exemplars are sets of simple and complex resource description problem-solution (i.e., describe this!) scenarios, solutions to which involve:

Identification and description of the cultural, scientific, and mathematical ideas applicable to the resource description.

This description will involve the creation of sign (e.g., ASL), spoken, or tactile structured or unstructured language and gesture, still and motion natural or computer generated images and audio, of paper tool or other specialized diagrams/models, and conceptual and logical data models, etc. of the resource(s) being described.

Interrelation of resource descriptions to themselves

Evaluation of the extent to which contextual analyses, models and various implementations capture specified aspects of the resource.

A collection of Cultural Heritage resource description exemplars developed with experience and over time and for presented for study, mastery, and improvement, and use would include treatments of familiar, time-tested resources that were had been innovative in their time:

A manuscript (individual and related multiples, published but host to history, imaginary, etc.)

A monograph in one edition (individual and related multiples)

A monograph in multiple editions (individual and related multiples)

A publication in multiple media, sequentially or simultaneously created

more complex ones:

A continuing publication (individual and related multiple publications, special editions, name, publisher, editorial policy changes, etc.)

A library-hosted multimedia resource and its associated resource description network

A World Wide Web page and its underlying globally-distributed multimedia resource network, changing over time

and then proceed to very complex ones, as will be illustrated below.

Exemplars vs. Use Cases – As products of and guides for theory-making, resource description exemplars have different origins and audiences than those for “use cases,” the software modeling technique employed by the LLD XG[xxxiii] in support of requirements specification.

“A use case in software engineering and systems engineering, is a description of steps or actions between a user (or ‘actor’) and a software system which leads the user towards something useful. The user or actor might be a person or something more abstract, such as an external software system or manual process… Use cases are mostly text documents, and use case modeling is primarily an act of writing text and not drawing diagrams. Use case diagrams are secondary in use case work.[xxxiv]”

The FRBR paper tool was developed specifically to allow a cataloging theorist or other party employing FRBR-based cataloging rules to create and explore simple and complex resource description structures from bibliographic data, as well as to define resource description structures as part of a theoretical exploration. The use of diagrams in support of conceptualization and information system design is deliberately patterned after professional data modeling theory and practice.[xxxv] The things of interest that described in in Exemplars – after conceptual and logical data modeling and then implementation take place – are represented in part by the data that is collected, managed, and manipulated by information systems.

Murray notes that a resource description theorist, iIn addition to creating exemplars from real bibliographic data and other sources, would Murray notes that a resource description theorist would also want to be able to speculate diagrammatically about possible resource/description configurations that will require improvements in existing information technologies. Tillett and MurrayFor example, it is as important to find out what can’t be done with the current FRBR model, at library and Internet scales, as it is to explain routine cataloging or tagging activities. Discovering system limitations is better done in advance by simulating uncommon circumstances than by having problems appear in production systems.

Cultural Heritage Resource Description Exemplars As– Problem Solution Sets

The FRBR paper tool’s flexibility is useful for exploring potentially complex bibliographic relationships created or uncovered by scholars – parties whose expertise lies in identifying, interrelating, and discussing creative concepts and influences across a full range of communicative expressions. The work products of scholars –, especially those creations that are dense with quotations, citations, and other types of direct and derived textual and graphical reference within and beyond themselves –, are excellent environments for paper tool explorations and exemplar fitness-for-purpose testing.– Theyand also pose real-world challenges for designers of paradigm-shifting information systems. By providing a rule-based way of identifying and depicting relationships between resources, paper tool diagrams support exemplar creation and exploration by concentrating a great deal of information in a readily assimilated form. AExemplar-minded paper tool explorations of scholarly’s treatments of a 19th Century American novel and another of 18th Century French poems drawn from state archives are presented below to illustrate how exemplar-based information system design and pedagogy can be informed by diagrammatic representations of bibliographic and other relationships.

From Moby-Dick to Mash-Ups – A Publication History and Multimedia Mash-Up Exemplar

Problem: Document the publication history of print copies of a literary work, identifying editorally driven content transfer across print editions, as well as content transformation in support of multimedia resource creation.

Solution: After identifying a checklist for print edition publication and tracing key features of a Moby-Dick and Orson Welles-themed multimedia resource appropriation and transformation network, Murray used the FRBR paper tool and additional connection rules to create a Resource Description Diagram (RDD) that represented a scholar’s documentation of the printing history (from 1851 to 1976) of Herman Melville’s epic novel, Moby-Dick.[xxxvi]

[pic]

Figure 9. A Moby-Dick Resource Description Diagram, Depicting Relationships Between Printings

Made Between 1851-1976 (Greatly Reduced Scale)

To reduce displayed complexity, sets of FRBR diagram elements were “collapsed” into green shaded squares representing entire editions/printings, yielding fig. 9.[xxxvii] Two or more lines converging on a green square from above indicate that a printing was created by combining parts of multiple texts – a technique similar to that of the mash-ups published on the World Wide Web. Squares not linked to any others indicate that Tanselle had not established the predecessors of the depicted editions – a condition which speaks to the benefits to be acquired by exemplar-minded collaborative description and diagram creation.

When taken as scholarly documentation, Melville scholars, enthusiasts, and scholarly organizations[xxxviii] can examine, discuss and add to the diagram and increase its documentary and educational (for scholars, etc.) value. The wealth of descriptive information available for Moby-Dick in all its forms justifies divisions of labor among Cultural Heritage institutions (to provide baseline structure and content), and parties who flesh out the structure with general and specific content.

When taken as a resource description exemplar or sample solutionpromoted to exemplary problem-solution status by catalogers and others describing similar resources, examination attention and discussion can focus shift on exemplar sufficiency, i.e., does it solve the description problem by accommodatinge and structuring available information about the resource? If, in the face of information flowing in from all quarters, the exemplar cannot accommodate the variety of information known to benefit resource discovery, identification, selection, navigation, etc., the opportunity then exists to modify or replace the exemplar with one that does a better job. This more focused process of exemplar identification or creation followed by, modification, and replacement reflects both Kühn’s and historian of science Kaiser’s interests in how work gets done in the sciences, as well as their rejection of paradigms as eerie self-directing processes.[xxxix], and embraces exemplars as problem-solution sets that support theory, practice, and education.[xl]

Extending Or Replacing Exemplars Extension – In its original form, the Moby-Dick resource description diagram (and the exemplar it supportedimplied) only covered complete printed publications of Melville’s work. As a test of the FRBR paper tool’s ability to accommodate both traditional and modern creative expressions in individual and aggregate form – while having the result continue to serve theoreticaly, practicale, and educational ends – Murray then went on to incorporateed a resource description network forof Alex Itin’s Moby-Dick-themed multimedia mash-up, Orson Whales[xli] into the RDD. The four-minute long Orson Whales multimedia mash-up contains hundreds of hand-painted page images from the novel, excerpts from a Led Zeppelin song ‘Moby Dick,’ parts of two vocal performances by the actor Orson Welles, and a video clip from Welles’ motion picture Citizen Kane. The result is shown in fig. 10.

[pic]

Figure 10. A Resource Description Diagram Of Alex Itin’s Moby-Dick Multimedia Work,

Depicting The Resources And Their FRBR Descriptions.

The four-minute long Orson Whales multimedia mash-up contains hundreds of hand-painted page images from the novel, excerpts from a Led Zeppelin song ‘Moby Dick,’ parts of two vocal performances by the actor Orson Welles, and a video clip from Welles’ motion picture Citizen Kane. Each of the mash-up’s components is related to paper tool depictions of the original resources.

The leftmost group of descriptions in fig. 10 depicts various releases of Led Zeppelin’s musical work, “Moby Dick.” The central grouping depicts the sources of two Orson Welles audio dialogues after they had been ripped (i.e., digitized from physical media) and made available online. The grouping on the right depicts the Orson Whales mash-up itself and collections of digital images of painted pages taken from two printed copies of the novel and painted. The RDD layout and connectivity suggests a mechanism for navigating to the original resources from any component of the mash-up.

Content resident in the custody in other Cultural Heritage institutions can also benefits from a paper tool approach, provided things of interest and relationships between them can be defined adequately.

Poetry and The Police – An Archival Content Identification and Critical Analysis Exemplar

Problem: Examine archival collections and, select, describe, and document ownership and copying other relationships of a set of documents (poems) alleged to have circulated among within a social group.

Solution 1: In his 2010 work, Poetry and the Police: Communication Networks in Eighteenth-Century Paris, historian Robert Darnton studied a 1749 Paris police investigation into the transmission of poems highly critical of Louis XV. After combing state archives for police reports, scraps of paper once held as evidence, and other archival materials, Darnton was able to construct a poetry communication network diagram[xlii] which,, along with his narrative account, identified the parties who owned, copied, and transmitted six scandalous poems and placed their actions in a social and political context.

Solution 2: Darnton’s analysis treated each poem as a separate creative work,[xliii] enabling the use of thea FRBR paper tool (as a bookkeeping device) instead of one designed to aggregate and describe archival materials. Murray was able to devise a more articulated FRBR paper tool version of the network. Figure. 11 presents depicts part of the FRBR paper tool depiction of the poetry communication network.

[pic]

Figure 11. A Section Of Darnton’s Poetry Communication network

The FRBR paper tool version of the poetry communication network[xliv] is composed of:

• Tan squares that depict the individuals (clerks, professors, priests, students, etc.) who read, performed, and discussed, copied and passed along the poems.

• FRBR diagram elements that depict written poetry on scraps of paper (treated as resources), in police custody, admitted to have existed by suspects, or assumed to have existed by the police. Paper tool conventions can accommodate lost and nonexistent but describable resources – if theory and business rules permit.

• Arrowed lines that represent relationships between a work of poetry poem and the pParties who owned copies, those who created or received a copiespy of the poem, etc.

With Darnton’s monograph to provide background information regarding historical personages involved, relationships between the works and the people, his document selection from archival fonds, the above solution can first of all serve as enhanced documentation for Darnton’s scholarly analysis and discussion. It , and can then serve then as an exemplar for catalogers, scholars, and others who want a solution to the problem of to identifyingy, describinge, and discussing as individual works documents ordinarily grouped into archival fonds.

A Paper Tool Into a Power Tool

Murray notes that there are limits to what they can do with a hand-drawn FRBR paper tools. While he was able to depict large-scale bibliographic relationships that probably had not been observed before, he had to stop building the Moby-Dick diagram because he could not put the useful information he had into a static, hand-drawn diagram. What he says thinks is needed now is automated assistance in creating resource description diagrams from bibliographic records. With that capability at hand, cataloging theorists and parties with scholarly and pedagogical interests could more efficiently and interactively examine how scholars and sophisticated readers describe significant quantities of analog and digital resources.

Murray asserts that it would be extremely useful to begin a scholarly discussion or a lecture by saying “Given a Moby-Dick resource description network …” and then to be able to argue or teach work directly from a diagram depicting all copies of all printings of Moby-Dick – along with all adaptations and excerpts – in a given Bibliographic Universe (such as the records that appear in OCLC’s WorldCat bibliographic database). Resource description diagrams, created from real-world or theoretically motivated considerations, would then offer provide a diagrammatic means for depicting the precise and flexible underlying mathematical representations, and that, heretofore unrecognized, how those representations serve resource description ends. If the structure of a well-motivated resource description diagram makes requirements that an IT system cannot handle all structures uncovered in an analysis to exist, cataloging theorists and information technologists alike will then know of that system’s limitations and decide how to mitigate to them and/or how to improve system capabilities.

Cataloging Theory, Tool-Making, Education, And UsePractice

Tillett and Murray note that the resource description theory presented offers new and enhanced roles and benefits for Cultural Heritage personnel as well as for the scholars, students, and those members of the general public who require support not just for searching, but also for collecting, reading, writing, collaborating, monitoring, etc.[xlv] Information systems that couple a modern, high-level understanding about how resources are described, organized, and presented for exploration with data models that support multiple points of view can support those requirements.

Tillett and Murray assert that what used to be called cataloging theory and practice – disciplines that did not especially interest many outside of Cultural Heritage institutions – has evolved into a much more comprehensive multilevel activity which can be approached from with at least two distinct points of view. The researchers think consider of their approach as providing a cosmological-level view of the Bibliographic Universe. This perspective on existing or imaginable large-scale configurations of Cultural Heritage resource descriptions is a necessary complement to a quantum-level approach – one with characterized by IT-related specificities such as character sets, identifiers, RDF triples, triplestores, etc. and enabling powerful but unconstrained and theory information processing capabilities naïve to theory – pursued by Semantic Web technologists. Murray asserts that both views – and actions taken according in pursuit to of those views – are essential for progress. He notes that progress in the history of physics is highlighted brightly illuminated by mutually influential interactions of cosmological- and quantum-level theories, practices, and pedagogy – and that workers in Cultural Heritage institutions s and technologists pursuing World Wide Web Consortium initiatives technologists would do well to heed reflect on that finding.

Ready for the Future – And Creating The Future

Tillett and Murray assert that exploring the cultural, scientific, and mathematical ideas underlying Cultural Heritage resource description, the theoretical reach of their paper tool – or ones created by their colleagues – the identification, study, and teaching of exemplars, , and the cultural, scientific, and mathematical ideas underlying Cultural Heritage resource descriptionand exploiting the theoretical reach and bookkeeping capability of their paper tool (or of ones created by their colleagues) complement pay homage to the Cultural Heritage community’s 170+ year-old talent for pragmatic, implementation-oriented thinking while pointing out a rich set of possibilities for future service. The community can draw inspiration from geometrician Bernhard Riemann’s justification for thinking outside of the box:

“The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean.[xlvi]”

Taking Riemann to heart, Murray asserts that the value of describing Cultural Heritage resources as observations organized into graphs, and of attending to the exemplars that have evolved over time and circumstance lies in their potential to liberate the Cultural Heritage community from preconceived ideas about resource description structures and points of view on those resources. Having achieved that goal, the Cultural Heritage community would then be ready when the demand came for resource description structures that are more flexible and powerful than the traditional ones. Mindful of the unprecedented development of the World Wide Web and the promise of Semantic Web initiatives, Tillett and Murray think that the time for Cultural Heritage community’s liberation is at hand.

-----------------------

[i] See “Part II: Building Data” in Peter Galison, Image & Logic: A Material Culture Of Microphysics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 370-431.

[ii] Exclusive control of classification schemes and of the records that named and described its specimens are said to have contributed to the success of the British Museum’s institutional mission in the 19th Century. Gordon McQuat, “Cataloguing Power: Delineating ‘Competent Naturalists’ And The Meaning Of Species In The British Museum,” The British Journal for the History of Science, 34, no. 1 (Mar., 2001), 1-28.

As a division of the British Museum, the British Library appears to have incorporated classification concepts (hierarchical structuring) from its parent and elaborated upon the Museum’s strategies for cataloging species.

[iii] “observation, n.”. OED Online. July 2011. Oxford University Press. (accessed 7/8/2011).

[iv] David C. Hay, UML And Data Modeling: A Vade Mecum For Modern Times (Bradley Beach NJ: Technics Press, Forthcoming 2011), 124-125.

[v] Gerald Holton, “The Roots Of Complementarity,” Daedalus 117, no. 3 (1988): 151-197, accessed February 24, 2011, .

[vi] Niels Bohr, quoted in Aage Petersen, “The Philosophy Of Niels Bohr,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 19, no. 7 (Sept. 1963): 12.

[vii] Niels Bohr, “Quantum Physics and Philosophy: Causality and Complementarity.” in Essays 1958-1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Woodbridge CT: Ox Bow Press, 1997), 7.

[viii] For cataloging theorists, the description of Cultural Heritage things of interest yields groups of statements that occupy different levels of abstraction. Upon regarding a certain physical object, a marketer describes product feature, a linguist enumerates utterances, a scholar perceives a work with known or inferred relationships to other works, etc.

[ix] Marcia Ascher, Ethnomathematics: A Multicultural View of Mathematical Ideas (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1991). Marcia Ascher, Mathematics Elsewhere: An Exploration of Ideas across Cultures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).

[x] Barbara Tillett, “Bibliographic Relationships: Towards a Conceptual Structure of Bibliographic Information Used in Cataloging” (PhD. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1987).

[xi] As opposed to database implementations that permitted Boolean operations on records at retrieval time. For a set-theoretic treatment of bibliographic entities, see Elaine Svenonius, The Intellectual Foundation Of Information Organization (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), 32-51.

[xii]

[xiii] Francis J. Witty, “The Pinakes Of Callimachus,” Library Quarterly 28, no. 1-4 (1958): 132-136.

[xiv] Ronald J. Murray, “Re-Imagining The Bibliographic Universe: FRBR, Physics, And The World Wide Web,” , last modified Oct 22 2010, .

[xv] For an overview of the technology-driven Library Linked Data initiative, see . Murray and Tillett s analyses of Cultural . Murray and Tillett’s analyses of Cultural Heritage resource descriptions may be explored in a series of slideshows at .

[xvi] Pat Riva, Martin Doerr, and Maja Žumer, “FRBROO: Enabling a Common View of Information from Memory Institutions,” International Cataloging and Bibliographic Control 38, vol. 2 (June 2009): 30-34.

[xvii] Dénes König, Theory Of Finite And Infinite Graphs, trans. Richard McCoart (Boston: Birkhaüser, 1990).

Fred Buckley and Marty Lewinter, A Friendly Introduction To Graph Theory (Upper Saddle River NJ: Pearson Education Inc., 2003).

Oystein Ore and Robin Wilson, Graphs And Their Uses. Washington DC: The Mathematical Association of America 1990.

Siriam Pemmaraju and Steven Skiena, Computational Discrete Mathematics: Combinatorics And Graph Theory With Mathematica.© (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

[xviii] “Set Theory, branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of well-defined collections of objects, which may or may not be of a mathematical nature, such as numbers or functions. The theory is less valuable in direct application to ordinary experience than as a basis for precise and adaptable terminology for the definition of complex and sophisticated mathematical concepts.”

Quoted from “Set Theory,” Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Oct 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica. (accessed Oct. 27 2010).

[xix] IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report (München: K.G. Saur, 1998). This document is downloadable from or as html: VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm.

[xx] Ursula Klein, ed., Experiments, Models, Paper Tools: Cultures Of Organic Chemistry In The Nineteenth Century, (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 2003).

Ursula Klein, ed., Tools And Modes Of Representation In The Laboratory Sciences, (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001).

David Kaiser, Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion Of Feynman Diagrams In Postwar Physics. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).

[xxi] For a more examples and an general description of Feynman diagrams see

[xxii] The Library Linked Data incubator group’s mission statement: “The mission of the Library Linked Data incubator group is to help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web, by bringing together people involved in Semantic Web activities—focusing on Linked Data—in the library community and beyond, building on existing initiatives, and identifying collaboration tracks for the future.

The group will explore how existing building blocks of librarianship, such as metadata models, metadata schemas, standards and protocols for building interoperability and library systems and networked environments, encourage libraries to bring their content, and generally re-orient their approaches to data interoperability towards the Web, also reaching to other communities. It will also envision these communities as a potential major provider of authoritative datasets (persons, topics...) for the Linked Data Web. As these evolutions raise a need for a shared standardization effort within the library community around (Semantic) Web standards, the group will refine the knowledge of this need, express requirements for standards and guidelines, and propose a way forward for the library community to contribute to further Web standardization actions.”

Quoted from “Library Linked Data Incubator Group Wiki,” World Wide Web Consortium, last modified July 1, 2011,

[xxiii] The LLD Incubator Group defines library linked data as follows:

“Library. The word "library" (analogously to "archive" and "museum") refers to three distinct but related concepts: a collection, a place where the collection is located, and an agent which curates the collection and administers the location. Collections may be public or private, large or small, and are not limited to any particular types of resources.

Library data. "Library data" refers to any type of digital information produced or curated by libraries that describes resources or aids their discovery. Data used primarily for library-management purposes is generally out of scope. As discussed in more detail below, this report pragmatically distinguishes three types of library data based on their typical use: datasets, element sets, and value vocabularies.

Linked Data. "Linked Data" (LD) refers to data published in accordance with principles designed to facilitate linkages among datasets, element sets, and value vocabularies. Linked Data uses Web addresses (URIs) as globally unique identifiers for dataset items, elements, and value concepts, analogously to the library world's identifiers for authority control. Linked Data defines relationships between things; these relationships can be used for navigating between, or integrating, complementary sources of information.

Library Linked Data. "Library Linked Data" (LLD) is any type of library data that is either natively maintained, or merely exposed, in the form of RDF triples, thus facilitating linking.”

Quoted from “Draft Report With Transclusion,” Section Title: “Scope Of This Report,” World Wide Web Consortium, last modified June 10, 2011, .

[xxiv] Ibid. Section title: “Bottom-Up Standards Can Be Successful But Garner Little Recognition.”

[xxv] Ibid. Section title: “Libraries Do Not Adapt Well To Technological Change.” .

[xxvi] “Resource Description Framework (RDF),” RDF Working Group, last modified Feb 2, 2010, .

[xxvii] The complete quote (spacing added) is: “Translators of legacy library standards into Linked Data must recognize that Semantic Web technologies are not merely variants of practices but represent a fundamentally different way to conceptualize and interpret data.

Since the introduction of MARC formats in the 1960s, digital data in libraries has been managed predominantly in the form of ‘records’ -- bounded sets of information described in documents with a precisely specified structure -- in accordance with what may be called a Record Paradigm.

The Semantic Web and Linked Data, in contrast, are based on a Graph Paradigm. In graphs, information is conceptualized as a boundless ‘web’ of links between resources -- in visual terms as sets of nodes connected by arcs (or ‘edges’), and in semantic terms as sets of ‘statements’ consisting of subjects and objects connected by predicates.

The three-part statements of Linked Data, or ‘triples,’ are expressed in the language of the Resource Description Framework (RDF). In the Graph Paradigm, the ‘statement’ is an atomic unit of meaning that stands on its own and can be combined with statements from many different sources to create new graphs -- a notion ideally suited for the task of integrating information from multiple sources into recombinant graphs.”

Quoted from “Library Data Must Be Conceptualized According To The Graph Paradigm,” World Wide Web Consortium, last modified June 10, 2011, .

[xxviii] Thomas S. Kühn, The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1962.

[xxix] Margaret Masterman, “The Nature of a Paradigm,” in Criticism And The Growth Of Knowledge. International Colloquium In The Philosophy of Science, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 59-89.

[xxx] Masterman, ibid, 65-66.

[xxxi] Conceptual models, applying Semantic Web technology, workflows, data management, outreach, etc. Quoted From “Topics For LLD Discussion And Use Cases,” World Wide Web Consortium, last modified June 10, 2011, .

[xxxii] Everett M. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. (New York: Free Press. 2003). The sociologist Everett Rogers defined an innovation as any thing, concept, or event perceived as new within an organization or community. Social networks convey information about an innovation, with key roles having a critical effect on adoption.

Rogers also identified five perceived attributes of an innovation that determine its rate of adoption within an organization: relative advantage, comparability, complexity, trialability, and observability. The phrases “early adopter,” “late adopter,” and “barriers to adoption” come from Rogers’ research program. A review of empirical research on information technology diffusion has identified four innovation adoption contexts XXXX. Social networks convey information about an innovation, with key roles having a critical effect on the result. Rogers identified five perceived attributes of an innovation that determine its rate of adoption within an organization: relative advantage, comparability, complexity, trialability, and observability. Everett M. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. (New York: Free Press. 2003).

The LLD XG employs Diffusion of Innovations terminology in its report, but did not rate its own topic against the perceived innovation attributes listed above.

[xxxiii] Daniel Vila Suero, “Use Case Report,” World Wide Web Consortium, last modified June 27, 2011, .

[xxxiv] “Use Case,” Wikipedia, last modified June 13, 2011, .

[xxxv] Graeme Simsion, Data Modeling: Theory and Practice (Bradley Beach NJ: Technics Press, 2007), 333.

[xxxvi] Herman Melville, Moby-Dick (New York: Harper & Brothers; London: Richard Bentley 1851).

Moby-Dick edition publication history excepted from G. Thomas Tanselle, Checklist Of Editions Of Moby-Dick 1851-1976. Issued On The Occasion Of An Exhibition At The Newberry Library Commemorating the 125th Anniversary Of Its Original Publication (Evanston and Chicago: Northwestern University Press and The Newberry Library, 1976).

[xxxvii] Ronald J. Murray, “From Moby-Dick to Mash-Ups: Thinking About Bibliographic Networks,” , last modified April 2011, . The Moby-Dick resource description diagram was presented to the American Library Association Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access at the ALA Annual Conference 2010 on July 2010.

[xxxviii] “The Life and Works of Herman Melville” The Life and Works of Herman Melville, last modified July 25, 2000, .

[xxxix] Kaiser, 2005, 385-386.

[xl] Kaiser, 2005, 385-386.

[xli] The New York artist describes his creation: “It is more a less a birthday gift to myself. I've been drawing it on every page of Moby Dick (using two books to get both sides of each page) for months. The soundtrack is built from searching ‘moby dick’ on YouTube (I was looking for Orson's Preacher from the the [sic] John Huston film)... you find tons of Led Zep [sic] and drummers doing Bonzo and a little Orson... makes for a nice Melville in the end. Cinqo [sic] de Mayo I turn Forty. Ahhhhhhh the French Champagne.”

Quoted from Alex Itin, “Orson Whales,” YouTube, last modified Jan 2011, .

[xlii] Robert Darnton, Poetry And The Police: Communication Networks In Eighteenth-Century Paris (Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010), 16.

[xliii] Ronald J. Murray in a discussion with the author, Sept 20, 2010.

Darnton considered the poems retrieved from the archives as distinct intellectual creations –which permitted the use of FRBR diagram elements for the analysis. Otherwise, a paper tool with diagram elements based on the archival descriptive standard ISAD(G) would have been used. Committee on Descriptive Standards, “ISAD (G): General International Standard Archival Description,” (Stockholm, Sweden, 1999).

[xliv] The complete poetry communication diagram may be viewed at: XXXXX

[xlv] Carole L. Palmer, Lauren C. Teffeau, and Carrie M. Pittman, Scholarly Information Practices For The Online Environment: Themes From The Literature And Implications For Library Science Development (Dublin OH: OCLC Research, 2009), .

[xlvi] G.F.B. Riemann quoted in Marvin J. Greenberg, Euclidean And Non-Euclidean Geometry: Development And History (New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 2008), 371.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download