Content

Maria Teresa Biagetti, Bibliographical Relationships in Knowledge Organization Systems: A Historical-Theoretical Perspective in:

International Society for Knowledge Organziation (ISKO), Marianne Lykke, Tanja Svarre, Mette Skov, Daniel Martínez-Ávila (Ed.)

Knowledge Organization at the Interface, page 41 - 48

Proceedings of the Sixteenth International ISKO Conference, 2020 Aalborg, Denmark

1. Edition 2020, ISBN print: 978-3-95650-775-5, ISBN online: 978-3-95650-776-2, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956507762-41

Series: Advances in Knowledge Organization, vol. 17

Bibliographic information
Maria Teresa Biagetti – Sapienza Rome University, Italy Bibliographical Relationships in Knowledge Organization Systems A Historical-Theoretical Perspective Abstract: The study endeavours to analyse the bibliographical relationships provided by some prominent cataloguing codes in the 19th century that is, the codes by Panizzi, Jewett and Cutter, with the aim of highlighting the deep organization of cross-references. The bibliographical relationships in ancient catalogues are compared to the bibliographical relationships provided by the FRBR model and analysed in relation to the functionalities offered in linked open data format built by libraries. The study remarks that in the exposition in LOD format of catalographic data by Libris, data.bnf.fr and datos.bne.es, all the relationships provided by ancient catalogues are not provided. 1.0 Introduction Bibliographic relationships are one of the central issues of Knowledge Organization and of cataloguing theory. Derivative relationship brings into being different editions and translations of a work and a further class of derivative textual works, such as amplifications, extractions, commentaries, adaptations, and creates families of works from a common progenitor. The frequency and distribution of derivative works has been analysed by Smiraglia and Lazer (1999). In addition to the descriptive, sequential, wholepart and accompanying relationships, Tillet too drew attention to derivative relationships, such as different versions of a work, editions, revisions, summaries, adaptations, new works based on the earlier work, changes of genre, as dramatizations (Tillet 1989; 2001; Green 2001). Also in the new models for organizing bibliographic data, such as FRBR (IFLA 1998) and LRM (IFLA 2017), bibliographic relationships are crucial. The analysis by Noruzi (2012) reveals that there is an important, albeit not complete, congruence between the categories defined by FRBR and Tillett’s categorization. Additionally, Arsenault and Noruzi (2012) focused on Work-to-Work bibliographic relationships among Canadian publications, and highlighted the frequency and percentage of Workto-Work bibliographic relationships in some categories, such as supplement, successor, transformation, and adaptation. RDA (American Library Association 2010) provides guidelines to set up bibliographic relationships between related Works, considering the derivative, the whole/part, and the sequential relations; moreover, it offers lists of relationship designations to be used. In building data set in LOD format, bibliographic ontologies or data models are used, such as Bibo (The Bibliographic Ontology) and Bibframe (The Library of Congress 2016), in which bibliographic relationships are essential, and expressed in the form of object properties. 2.0 Methodology The main issue of this study is to pinpoint more exactly bibliographical relationships in bibliographic entities and to highlight the importance of thoroughly analysing the structure of catalogues of prominent libraries in the past centuries, because they provide 42 a valuable source to study bibliographical categories and relationships involved also in the realization of modern tools for retrieval. The aim is to provide a more thorough model of bibliographic relationships to use in particular in LOD built by libraries, with the purpose of emphasizing the relationships not offered in the modern models. Therefore, an analysis of a sample of portals of data sets in LOD format is offered with the aim of analysing the relationships used and provided for searching. A historical-theoretical survey about the most significant catalographic tools in the 19th century is presented, with the purpose of verifying the structures used to underline the bibliographic relationships. 3.0 Bibliographic relationships in the catalogues of the 19th century Some catalogues in the 19th century provide cross-references to connect Works and Expressions, Works and Authors, Authors and Texts, Author and Author. In this paper, I consider only a few of them. In The British Museum’s Rules for the compilation of the catalogue (1839), issued within the first volume of the Catalogue of printed books in the British Museum (1941) and for the most part a great deal of effort by Antonio Panizzi, the Rules LXI-LXII provide a set of cross-references (some of them already offered by the British Museum catalogue 1787 and 1813-1819) that allow to offer links between Authors and Works: editors, co-authors and authors of continuations, translations, comments and biographies. An in-depth analysis of the ancient cataloguing rules is presented by Biagetti (2001). In the Report of the 21th February 1839 addressed to the Trustees of the British Museum (Appendix n. 10 1850) which provides the synthesis of the catalographic regulations established by Panizzi himself, is presented the network of references that should be realized to link Works, Texts and Authors and to connect an author’s work to all the authors of the different texts and of illustrations, or to the editors and commentators or the person who is continuing a work. Table 1 shows a synthesis of the Rules LXI-LXII for cross-references, some examples from the Appendix n. 10 (1850), p. 192 and my explanation between brackets: Table 1 Relationships and examples from the Panizzi’s Rules for the British Museum The editor’s name and the work edited. “Garret (William). See Floddon field. The battle, etc. 1822, 8°” (Garret is the editor of the edition of the work about the battle of Flodden field). The author’s name of a biography issued within an edition of a work and the work’s title. “Campegius (Symphorianus). Arnaldi vita. See Arnaldus or Arnoldus de Villanova. Opera etc. 1520. fol” (Symphorien Champier issued Arnaldi Vita within the edition 1520 of the Works by Arnaldo da Villanova). The co-author’s names and the work’s author and title. “Fletcher (John). See Beaumont (F.). Comedies and tragedies. 1674. fol” (Fletcher and Beaumont are co-authors). The author’s name of a continuation of a work and the work’s author and title. “Gaertner (Carolus Fridericus). Supplementum carpologiae. See Gaertner (J.). De fructibus et siminibus. 1788-1805. 4°” (Gaertner C. F. is the author of the supplement published in 1805 to the Joseph Gaertner’s work). The name of a translator of a work and the work’s author and title. “Moir (George). See Schiller (F) Wallenstein. 1827. 8°” (George Moir is the translator in English of the Schiller’s work). The name of a commentator of a work and the work’s author and title. “Sullivan (Arabella). See Ogle (B.) Lady Dacre, Recollections…1833. 8°” (Recollections of a chaperon is a histories’ collection known as by Barbarina Ogle, Wilmot, Brand (Lady 43 Dacre), English poet and Arabella Sullivan’s mother, who in this case is considered to be the commentator of the work, but probably is the real author). It is important to notice that also semantic links are provided: the Rule LXIII connects the name of a person who is the subject of the biography and the name of the biographer; the Rule LXV links the name of an author whose work has been analysed within a work of another author and the name of the latter. Table 2 shows a synthetic explanation and examples from the Appendix n. 10, with my comment. Table 2 Relationships and examples from the Panizzi’s Rules for the British Museum The person subject of a biography and the biographer. “Rousseau (Jean Jacques). Vie. See Barruel de Beauvert (A. J.) Vie de J. J. Rousseau etc. 1789. 8°” (J. J: Rousseau is the subject of the biography by Barruel de Beauvert). The author whose work has been analysed into a work of another author and the author’s name. “Martialis (Marcus Valerius). See Calderinus (D.) Commentarii in M. 1474. 4°” (Calderinus is the author of the comment). Earlier, Antonio Panizzi offered a similar structure of cross-references in the classed catalogue of scientific works of the Royal Society1 published in 1836. In this case, references are used to link editors and commentators to the works, and discovered authors of anonymous works to the works. However, the most relevant thing is to use crossreferences with the aim of indexing works published within other publications or within miscellaneous works, reports or comments issued together with the publication to which they are linked, additions and supplements. Moreover, as this is a classed catalogue, the works concerning more than one discipline are linked to each relevant class by crossreferences. Table 3 shows a synthetic explanation, examples from the Royal Society Catalogue, 1836, and my comment. Table 3 Relationships and examples from the Panizzi’s Royal Society Catalogue The author of a work inserted within Another work and the work. “Cusa or Cusanus (Nicolaus de). De quadratura circuli deque recti ac curvi commensuratione. See Regiomonte (J. M. de). De triangulis omnimodis. Fol. 1533” (Cusano issued his work as an addition to the Regiomontano’s work). The author of a report related to a work and the work. “Ampère (A. M.) Rapport sur une mémoire de M. Bérard. See Bérard (J. B.). Méthodes nouvelles pour déterminer les Racines etc. 4° 1818”. (Ampère is the author of the report). Charles Coffin Jewett (1852) published On the construction of catalogues of libraries, and their publication by means of separate, stereotyped titles. Jewett devised a system to use stereotype plates to print catalogues of American libraries with uniform headings, under the direction of the Smithsonian Institution. To this aim, Jewett prepared the code for cataloguing to be used by the Smithsonian’s library, based on the Rules of the British Museum. The code provides cross-references for all the authorial responsibilities in a work: translators, commentators, editors, continuators, also from the name of any author whose work is contained in a collection. Semantic references are provided linking 1 The Royal Society Library, “Archive Room”, Catalogue 1836, without title page. On the spine of the book: “R. S. LIB. CAT. 1836”. 44 the name of a person subject of a biography or whose work is subject of a commentary (also without the text), to the work. Table 4 shows some explanations and examples from the work by Jewett (1852). Table 4 Relationships and examples from the Jewett’s work The editor’s name and the work edited. “Tacitus (Caius Cornelius). Cornelii Taciti opera. Ad codices antiqvos exacta et emendata commentario critico et exegetico illvstrata edidit Franciscvs Ritter ... V. 1–4. [With a biogr. and crit. preface.] Cantabrigiae, 1848. 8º.” The author’s name of a biography issued within an edition of a work and the work’s title. “Bentick (Lord George).See Disraeli (Benj.). Biography of Lord Geo. Bentinck.” The co-author’s names and the work’s author and title “Sievrac (Jean Henri). See Cobbett (Wm.). Roman hist. in French and English; the Fr. by J. H. Sievrac.” (The reference is to “Cobbett (William). Elements of the Roman history, in English and French, from the foundation of Rome to the battle of Actium; selected from the best authors, ancient and modern, with a series of questions ... The English by William Cobbett; the French by J. H. Sievrac. London, 1828. 12º”) The author’s name of a continuation of a work and the work’s author and title. “Marleborough (Henry). Ancient Irish histories.—The chronicle of Ireland. By Henry Marlebvrrovgh; continued from the collection of Doctor Meredith Hanmer, in the yeare 1571. Dublin, 1809. 8º”. The name of a translator of a work and the work’s author and title. “Taylor (William). See Oriental hist. mss. in the Tamil language; transl. with annotations by Wm. Taylor.” (The reference is to “Oriental historical manuscripts, in the tamil language: translated; with annotations. By William Taylor, missionary. […] Madras, 1835”.) The name of a commentator of a work and the work’s author and title. “Apollodorus, of Athens. See Heyne (C. G.). Ad Apollodori Ath. bibliothecam notæ, etc.” (The reference is to “Heyne (Christian Gottlob). Ad Apollodori Atheniensis bibliothecam notae avctore Chr. G. Heyne cvm commentatione de Apollodoro argvmento et consilio operis et cvm Apollodori fragmentis. […] Goettingae, 1783. 8º”). The author of a work published in a collection and the collection. “Spartianus (Ælius). See Historiae Augustæ scriptores. Ælius Spartianus”. (The reference is to “Historiae Augustæ scriptores VI. Ælius Spartianus. Julius Capitolinus. Ælius Lampridius. Vulc. Gallicanus. Trebell. Pollio. Flavius Vopiscus. Cum integris notis Isaaci Casauboni, Cl. Salmasii & Jani Gruteri. […] Lugduni Batav[orum], 1671. 8º”). The person subject of a biography and the biographer. “Alexander, the Great. See Curtius Rufus (Quintus). De rebus gestis Alexandri Magni.” In the Rules for a printed dictionary catalogue (1876), based on the catalographic practice followed setting up the first volume of the Boston Athenaeum Library, Charles Ammi Cutter established cross-references for all the authorships of a work, such as editors, translators, including designers, painters, cartographers and, in particular cases, engravers; moreover, for commentaries, continuation and indexes of a work. The Rules by Cutter are well known and it is not essential a complete explanation of the categories adopted. Moreover, they are in part similar to those by Panizzi. 45 4.0 FRBR, LRM, EDM and bibliographic relationships FRBR provides bibliographic relationships between Entities of the first group: Works, Expressions, Manifestations and Items in order to increase information and help finding linked Entities. Logic relationships are used to connect the second group, Entities, Persons and Corporate bodies, to the Entities of the first group. Semantic relationships are provided to link Works that concern the same topic, and a work of critic of a literary work. All the Entities of the three groups may be subject of a Work. Considering Work-to-Work relations, the most significant relationships in FRBR are sequel, supplement, concordance, summarization, transformation, imitation. Relationships between Expressions of the same work are Abridgement, Revision, Translation, Arrangement (music); between Expressions of different Works, there are relationships such as Successor, Supplement, Complement, Summarization, Adaptation, Transformation, and Imitation. In the FRBR, “relationships are examined in the context of the entities defined for the model, i.e., they are analysed specifically as relationships that operate between one work and another, between one expression and another, between a manifestation and an item, etc.” (IFLA 2009, 55) It is important to bear in mind that, however, the network of relationships concerns mainly transformations of a Work. Considering the attributes, the statement of responsibilities is highlighted only at the Manifestation level: authors, translators, editors, compilers. Knowing an attribute of responsibility related to an Expression of a Work, for instance the editor of a particular edition of a Work, it is not possible to find the Work, running through the web of relationships. In the LRM (2017, 63) the relationships of second level, in particular for Works, mainly include relations of subject, whole-part (component part), priority (logical continuation), complement (or companion), inspiration for (source of ideas), transformation (change of literary form); considering Expressions, are included relations of whole-part, derivation, aggregation; and in case of Manifestations, relations of whole-part and reproduction. In the EDM, Europeana Data Model for Europeana Collections (2017), the bibliographic relationships are presented in the form of properties, including “Is Derivative Of”, “Is Similar To”, “Is Next in Sequence To”, “Is Related To”, “Is Representation Of”, “Is Successor Of”, “Contributor”, “Creator”, “Is Replaced By”. 5.0 Data set in LOD format In this work I considered a little sample of data set provided by the Swedish Libris, the Biblioteca Nacional de España (Datos.bne.es), the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (data.bnf.fr). A mapping between the model proposed by the rules for cross-references provided by British Museum, by Jewett and by Cutter, and the realization of data set in LOD format by some influential libraries, is presented. The aim is to emphasize that LOD format realization by libraries could offer a more detailed and a deeper organization of information using a larger amount of bibliographic relationships, following the ancient catalogues’ model. Libris : The functionalities for searching in the Swedish OPAC based on LOD technologies offer the possibility to find all the works of an author – for instance, August Strindberg – including monographs and some article about him. Searching for a work – for instance, 46 Fröken Julie – the user can find all editions in original language and translations assembled by language. Datos.bne.es, (the beta version) : The functionalities in the Spanish portal allow to find a work – for instance, Don Quijote de la Mancha – and all the different editions also translated in other languages; moreover, they allow to find works about the work considered. Searching for an author – for instance, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra – the functionalities permit to find the entire author’s works, the works about him, including some biographies and, in case, the works attributed to the author. Data.bnf.fr : The portal offers a great number of functionalities based on semantic web technologies. Searching for an author – for instance, Victor Hugo – the user finds all the works in order of decreasing dates, the musical and iconographic works, manuscripts and archive documents, theatric works of which he is the author of the text; moreover, the works about Hugo are listed, split in categories, such as video, films, images, archive documents; finally, works and persons linked to Hugo are listed: co-authors, designers, engravers, librettists. Selecting a textual work – for instance, Les Misérables – all the editions in French are presented; moreover, the films, the registrations, the theatrical performances based on the work, monographs about the work, documentaries, and virtual shows. Furthermore, data.bnf.fr allows to find a great number of authors linked to the work: editors and commentators, translators, actors, scenographers, producers, and many others. 6.0 Discussion From the analysis, it appears that in Libris, Datos.bne.es and Data.bnf.fr derivative relationships, such as the categories concerning supplement, continuation and abridgements of a work are not thoroughly provided. On the contrary, these relationships were suggested – albeit restricted to continuation of a work – by Panizzi and followed by Jewett, and have been considered by FRBR. Moreover, there is the lack of the possibilities offered by the set of cross-references provided by the prominent catalogues of the 19th century. For instance, the possibility to connect the person who is the subject of a biography and the name of the biographer (except for Datos.bne) or to link works or reports inserted within another work to the host work, as was suggested by Panizzi’s Catalogue of the Royal Society. Data.bnf.fr provides the major number of connections based on the FRBR model and proposes the most thorough set of bibliographic information. However, it does not stress on works published within other publications or in miscellaneous works, as suggested by Panizzi. Table 5 shows a mapping between, on one side, a selection of relationships offered by the ancient cataloguing codes of the 19th century and, on the other side, modern data models, such as FRBR/LRM and data exposition in LOD format provided by three prominent libraries. 47 Table 5 Mapping between modern data models/LODs and ancient catalogues’ relationships *The Editor / the work edited x x *The Author of biography issued within a work / the work’s title *Co-authors / work’s title x x *The Author of a continuation of a work / the work x x *The Author of a translation of a work / the work x x x x *The Author of a comment of a work / the work x *The subject of a biography / the biographer x *The author whose work has been analyzed into a work / the work x x x x **The author of a work inserted within another work / the work **The author of a report related to a work / the work ***The author of a work published in a collection / the collection FRBR-LRM LIBRIS DATOS. BNE DATA. BNF EDM * Panizzi-Rules for British Museum, Jewett’s code and, in part, the Cutter’s Rules. ** Panizzi’s Royal Society Catalogue. *** Jewett’s code. 7.0 Conclusion The abundance of bibliographic relationships provided by the ancient catalogues through the skillful use of cross-references and links among responsibilities and Works or Expressions, persuades us that it is essential to analyse more thoroughly the structure of important ancient catalogues. In some cases, ancient catalogues show an advanced model of bibliographical relationships, and some connections they allow are not provided either by the FRBR model. This is the case of the Panizzi’s rule for the catalogue of British Museum regarding the link between the name of authors whose work is commented by another author and the name of the latter, or of the rule concerning the use of cross-references to index works published within other publications or within miscellaneous works. The prominent ancient catalogues are a relevant source to study bibliographic relationships involved also in setting up modern tools for searching resources, such as the tools provided by linked open data technologies. Semantic technologies and also bibliographic ontologies should allow to highlight a major number of connections between bibliographic entities. In particular, the works inserted within other works, the reports published within another work and the works issued in collections should receive a major opportunity to be highlighted. References American Library Association, Canadian Library Association, Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (Great Britain), Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA. 2010. RDA: Resource Description & Access. Chicago: American Library Association https://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/ Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Constitution and Management of the British Museum, N. 10. 1850. Attached to the Report of the Commissioners 48 Appointed to Inquire into the Constitution and Government of British Museum; with Minutes of Evidences, […] London, William Clowes and sons. Arsenault Clément and Alireza Noruzi. 2012. “Analysis of Work-to-Work Bibliographic Relationships through FRBR: A Canadian Perspective.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 50: 641-652. Biagetti Maria Teresa. 2001. Teoria e Prassi della Catalogazione Nominale. I Contributi di Panizzi, Jewett e Cutter. Roma, Bulzoni. Cutter A. Charles. 1876. “Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalogue by Charles A. Cutter Librarian of the Boston Athenaeum.” In Public Libraries in the United States of America… Their History, Condition, and Management. Washington, Government Printing Office. Europeana. 2017. Definition of the Europeana Data Model v5.2.8. https://pro.europeana.eu/files/Europeana_Professional/Share_your_data/Technical_requirements/EDM_Documentation//EDM_Definition_v5.2.8_102017.pdf Green Rebecca. 2001. “Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge: An Overview.” In Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge, edited by Carol A. Bean and Rebecca Green. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 3-18. IFLA. 1998. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report. München: K.G. Saur. IFLA. 2009. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report. Approved by the Standing Committee … As amended and corrected through February 2009. München: K.G. Saur. IFLA. 2017. Library Reference Model. Consolidation Editorial Group of the IFLA FRBR Review Group … Edited by Pat Riva, Patrick Le Boeuf, and Maja Žumer. Revised after worldwide review. Not yet endorsed by the IFLA Professional Committee or Governing Board. https://tinyurl.com/y98na59f]. Jewett Charles C. 1852. Smithsonian Report. On the Construction of Catalogues of Libraries, and Their Publication by Means of Separate, Stereotyped Titles. With Rules and Examples. Second edition. Washington: The Smithsonian Institution. The Library of Congress. 2016. Bibliographic Framework Initiative. Model and Vocabulary 2.0 https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/ Noruzi, Alireza. 2012. “FRBR and Tillett’s Taxonomy of Bibliographic Relationships”. Knowledge Organization 39: 409-416. Rules for the compilation of the catalogue. 1839. In Catalogue of Printed Books in the British Museum. Volume 1. London: printed by order of the Trustees, 1841, v-ix. Smiraglia, Richard P. and Gregory H. Leazer. 1999. “Derivative Bibliographic Relationships: The Work Relationship in a Global Bibliographic Database.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50, no. 6: 493-504. Tillett, Barbara B. 1989. “Bibliographic Structures: The Evolution of Catalog Entries, References, and Tracings.” In The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Cataloging, edited by Elaine Svenonius. San Diego: Academic Press Inc., 149-165. Tillett, Barbara B. 2001. “Bibliographic Relationships.” In: Relationships in the Organization of Knodwledge, edited by Carol A. Bean and Rebecca Green. Dordrecht: Springer, 19-35.

Chapter Preview

References

Abstract

The proceedings explore knowledge organization systems and their role in knowledge organization, knowledge sharing, and information searching.

The papers cover a wide range of topics related to knowledge transfer, representation, concepts and conceptualization, social tagging, domain analysis, music classification, fiction genres, museum organization. The papers discuss theoretical issues related to knowledge organization and the design, development and implementation of knowledge organizing systems as well as practical considerations and solutions in the application of knowledge organization theory. Covered is a range of knowledge organization systems from classification systems, thesauri, metadata schemas to ontologies and taxonomies.

Zusammenfassung

Der Tagungsband untersucht Wissensorganisationssysteme und ihre Rolle bei der Wissensorganisation, dem Wissensaustausch und der Informationssuche. Die Beiträge decken ein breites Spektrum von Themen ab, die mit Wissenstransfer, Repräsentation, Konzeptualisierung, Social Tagging, Domänenanalyse, Musikklassifizierung, Fiktionsgenres und Museumsorganisation zu tun haben. In den Beiträgen werden theoretische Fragen der Wissensorganisation und des Designs, der Entwicklung und Implementierung von Systemen zur Wissensorganisation sowie praktische Überlegungen und Lösungen bei der Anwendung der Theorie der Wissensorganisation diskutiert. Es wird eine Reihe von Wissensorganisationssystemen behandelt, von Klassifikationssystemen, Thesauri, Metadatenschemata bis hin zu Ontologien und Taxonomien.