A Survey of FRBRization Techniques

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FR-BR), an emerging model in the bibliographic domain, provide interesting possibilities in terms of cataloguing, representation and semantic enrichment of bibliographic data. However, the automated transformation of existing catalogs to fit this model is a requirement towards a wide adoption of FRBR in libraries. The cultural heritage community proposed a notable amount of FRBRization tools and projects, thus making it difficult for practitioners to compare and evaluate them. In this paper, we propose a synthetic and relevant classification of the FRBRization techniques according to specific criteria of comparison such as model expressiveness or specific enhancements.

BIB-R: A Benchmark for the Interpretation of Bibliographic Records

“…Due to page limitation, we refer to a recent survey for an exhaustive list of FRBRization tools [9]. The last decade has seen the emergence of rule-based FRBRization tools, since grouping-records tools are not able to process complex structures [2,12].…”

“…The FRBrization process has been described and enhanced in the last decade [1,9]. Figure 1 depicts an overview of the FRBRization process.…”

“…A deduplication task is necessary to detect and merge entities that represent the same concept. Finally, the last step is post-FRBRization, during which optional tasks are performed on the raw FRBR collection [9]. We only mention validation and enrichment.…”

“…In the last decades, the proliferation of FRBRization tools has demonstrated the need for specific enhancements (e.g., clustered deduplication, exploitation of added entries) to improve the process [9]. Despite this progress, it is still very complicated to evaluate and compare FRBRization tools for several reasons.…”

Open Datasets for Evaluating the Interpretation of Bibliographic Records

“…and transformation of existing data into the new models (e.g., FRBRization). In the last decade, many tools have been proposed to tackle this challenge [3], but it is very complicated to compare tools: the experiments which are described in the papers are rarely reproducible, mainly because the datasets are not publicly available. A few catalog excerpts are provided, but they do not reflect the reality and the challenges of library catalogs because they are mainly used for illustrating specific cases [1].…”