The FRBR model application to Italian cataloguing practices: general problems and its normative use

(January 2002)

0. RICA–Regole italiane di catalogazione per autori – Italian Authors’ Cataloguing Rules

The Regole Italiane di catalogazione per autori – RICA (Italian Authors’ Cataloguing Rules) has been published in 1979 and after then, it came gradually into use in the Italian libraries. RICA was promoted by the Ministry of Education, at the time responsible for the state libraries, and published by ICCU-Istituto centrale per il catalogo unico. The Commission, working for at least ten years at building up the code structure, was formed by librarians named by the Ministry and the code, before issuing, was approved by law: such an uncommon procedure was required in order to make its application mandatory for all state libraries in the country. In spite of this unusual way to proceed the code, as a whole, resulted conceived as a national set of rules, not specially oriented to one or another kind of institutions. Its priority was first of all that of harmonising different national cataloguing practices in the country and to put them in line with international principles and standards. Such features made its application easy all over the country also for other kinds of libraries: University, Regional, Special ones.

RICA, soundly based on Paris Principles, became effective in the production of the Italian National Bibliography-BNI’s records in 1981. Since its issue RICA’s use and application have been widespread in the majority of Italian libraries and we can therefore consider it a de facto national cataloguing code. To make a picture of the whole landscape it should be added that RICA is the cataloguing code used in SBN - Servizio Bibliotecario Nazionale, the on line Italian union catalogue, linking at the moment more than 1.380 libraries.

While RICA can be likely considered a consistent and stable set of requirements it has not necessarily been conceived as an ultimate point for what concerns cataloguing. In fact, in order to keep it in line with changing international principles and standards, a Standing Commission for RICA evolution was set up and started to work in 1997.

Though our cataloguing code, as far as the majority of codes born, bred and educated along the guidelines of the Paris Principles, has proved quite an effective structure up to now, RICA SC in revising it thought it advisable trying, if practicable, to redesign for it a more explicitly analytical frame according to the FRBR model. The code is in fact already providing, as optional, some of the FRBR requirements. Such provisions have, obviously, been ignored also in their more contained applications as long as cataloguing boundaries were limited by card catalogues possibilities. Moreover, due to long lasting traditions, they have been applied up to now only partially also in automated files.

The code is actually mainly dedicated to rules for choice and definition of author (personal and corporate)/title headings. The new structure of RICA will still be dealing mainly with access points, trying to cover all kind of responsibilities linked to new materials and media, and will provide for descriptive cataloguing,

10/05/23 Pagina 1 di 16

also if only at a general level, referring for this part to the recommendations of the various specialized ISBDs. The code will be reviewed in order to cover all kind of materials and of related linked responsibilities, varied in number and completeness according to different cataloguing level. We all think that the general principles on which the present code is based are still to be considered as valid.

The new code should provide a more analytical structure as a whole, with the possibility of developing a full scale FRBR model application. In our opinion, besides this, it should be also analyzed the parallel possibility of creating a less than full model, with bibliographic data which could be enhanced while re-used, in a process of cooperating activities, this would satisfy several needs included that of containing costs of production.

In order to verify the possible application of the model to the new structure of the code, the SC started since the beginning of 2000 an analysis of FRBR requirements. The work resulted in a set of considerations which have been discussed, and some of them are still under discussion, first of all with Tom Delsey, to whom the SC expresses its deep and sincere gratitude for the assistance, support, and consultancy supplied during the various phases of the work.

The paper has subsequently been analysed with the representatives of the Italian Libraries Association – AIB. The work is still in progress and both the Association and the SC will be cooperating, on this as well as on other points of the revision. The SC would also like to have Archives and Museums representatives involved in the analysis and in the discussion.

To conclude, we would like to make available the work done up to now, which should be considered for some points still in progress, available for a wider discussion at international level. It seems very likely that if other countries are planning, or are in the process of a revision of their respective cataloguing codes, incorporating FRBR provisions, the analysis developed could help in finding out possible common solutions and would permit exchanging a varied range of experiences.

1. Foreword about expression

The analysis put forward up to now by the RICA SC both theoretically, according to the entity-relationship model devised by the FRBR logic, and practically, through the development of some examples, within the frame provided by the model, has emphasized, side by side with its undeniable innovative aspects, some general problems that we thought it useful to summarize. One of this is the question of balancing cost reductions (achieved through minimal level descriptions) with improved accesses (achieved through reflecting in greater depth the relationships between works and expression and the persons responsible for their creation or realization), It seems that the two goals do pull in opposite directions and for this reason, that each cataloguing agency has to determine how much it is prepared to invest in the cataloguing of an item. What FRBR tries to do is to provide a better understanding of the data that may be included in the

10/05/23 Pagina 2 di 16

catalogue record and to give some indication of the relative functional value of those data elements (or more correctly, of the attributes to which the data correspond) so that libraries can make more informed decisions about where to focus their investments.

We deem it opportune, before starting a thorough examination of such problems, to remind briefly some points, which appeared to be particularly difficult to be approached, and for which the SC has provided for necessary clearance through a direct exchange of opinions with one of the consultants responsible for the development of the FRBR model, Tom Delsey. The points, listed below, are mainly concerned with the entity expression .

The “realization” of a work represents an expression, indipendently by its resistration (i.e., the extemporary delivery of a speech, and the improvisation of a composer at the piano would qualify as an expressions of works, regardless of whether they were recorded or not). We normally deal with recorded expressions, and as a result, the evidence we have of an expression is normally in the form of a manifestation, or more precisely, in the form of an item exemplifying a manifestation. In practice, the distinction between the manifestation and the expression is often blurred, because of the common practice in cataloguing to treat most manifestations as though they contained only one work. To clarify the concept of expression, and the distinction between it and work, on one hand, and manifestation on the other, it is helpful to look at the attributes and relationships associated with expression: form, date, language of the expression are all associated with the actual “realization” of the work, as distinct from the “conceptualization” of the work. Similarly the relationships defined between expression and person are those associated with the “realization” (editing, performing, etc.), as distinct from those associated with the “conceptualization” (composing, etc.). The model is structured so as to permit the representation of aggregate and componend entities in the same way as entities viewed as integral units are represented. That is, an aggregate work or a component of a work may be substituted for the entity labelled as work in the diagrams, and the same kind of substitutions may be made for aggregates and components of expressions and manifestations. In thinking now to what all this might mean in terms of cataloguing rules, it helps to look first at how the attributes of the expression have been reflected in conventional cataloguing records. In general, catalogue records (as distinguished from bibliographic records emanating from the disciplines of textual criticism and analytical bibliography) tend to reflect only the more obvious distinctions between expressions (e.g., the distinction between the textual form of a work and that same work expressed as spoken word in an audio recording). In more recent practice, distinctions of that kind are sometimes reflected (indirectly, at least) in a fairly prominent position in the description, through the general material designation. In other cases, those kinds of distinctions (related to form of expression, language of expression, etc.) are recorded simply as notes. Certain attributes of the expression (e.g., language of expression) are reflected in additions to uniform titles, where they become part of what FRBR refers to as organizing elements, as distinct form simple descriptive elements.

10/05/23 Pagina 3 di 16

As FRBR points out (in section 3.2.2), the degree to which bibliographic distinctions are made between variant expressions of a work will depend to some extent on the nature of the work itself, and on the anticipated needs of users. Regardless of how the distinction between one expression and another is reflected in the catalogue record, it can only be reflected through the attributes that are associated with the entity expression as defined in the model (i.e. form, language, etc.). Attributes associated with either the work or the manifestation per se are of no value in distinguishing the expression. It should be noted, however, that because catalogue records tend not to differentiate between expressions on the basis of less obvious differences, such as textual variants, there is no guarantee that two expressions are in fact the same simply because the one or two attributes noted for each correspond. In answer to the question about determining which manifestations embody the same expression, it follows that the expressions embodied in separate manifestations can only be considered to be the same if the values for the attributes and relationships that are associated with expression as an entity are the same (e.g., if the language of expression is the same, and the relationship to the person responsible for translation is the same). The title and the author relationship, however, operate at a different level, inasmuch as they indicate (though not always reliably) that the expressions, whether the same or different, are at least expressions of the same work. The primary value of recognizing expression as an entity within the model is that it focuses attention not only on the attributes of the expression, but perhaps more importantly that it highlights the relevance of the relationships between the expression and the person(s) responsible for the expression.

2. From “authors”’s to "works and expressions"’s cataloguing?

RICA SC has noted that while, at first sight, the main new structural element of the FRBR model is represented by the introduction of the entity expression, the whole model appears to give great relevance to the identification and distinction of all the first group’s entities, from the work to the item level, i.e. to the entities generally named with titles.On the contrary, authors’ cataloguing – by its same definition - has traditionally concentrated its attention more on the responsibilities of literary and not-literary products, and on their functions. This is a typical and partly compulsory choice made by cataloguing codes still in use, due to the not flexible context offered by card catalogues. The choice is also derived by the fact that, lacking the possibility of using other elements of selection now offered by automated systems, works, often with not distinctive names/titles, would have created more problems for their identification than authors. Only through automation and the possibility of combined searches (author + title) it is possible to recognise to the entity title the same value assigned from ever to authors. Up to now a particular attention has been dedicated to develop tools for defining and managing standard forms representing names of persons and bodies, while titles (as far as designating literary/textual entities) have been for a long time considered mainly as a sort of "surrogate" for names of authors; as a consequence, tools for defining and managing their standard forms have been developed more slowly and in a partial and limited way.

10/05/23 Pagina 4 di 16

Since long ago modern cataloguing rules consider it a usual standard the fact that each author should represent a well identified entity, to which corresponds a proper authority registration, linked to the bibliographic record not as a simple attribute of this last one. This happens notwithstanding empirical inquiries demonstrated that, generally, the majority of authors registered in a catalogue of considerable dimensions are linked to only one publication and do not present variant forms of the name. This means that managing all authors through an entity-relation model it is unanimously considered to be the more opportune and efficient solution, notwithstanding the fact that only in a minority of cases the author is acting as a grouping entity and the fact that not always there is a real need for creating relations between more than one name or forms of a name for the same author. On the contrary, for titles we commonly accept the rule according to which only some titles are registered as an authority entity, i.e. are controlled as autonomous entities.This evident difference of attitude is framed in a general structural asymmetry: from a logical point of view, the relation of responsibility should link the registration of the entity author (e.g. Dante Alighieri) to the registration of the entity work (e.g. Divina commedia) and therefore the registrations of the various editions will be consequently linked to this last one. On the contrary, in the major part of the systems the registrations of the entity author are linked directly to those of the single editions, or in some cases, as for example in SBN, they are linked to both levels (to the work, represented by its uniform title, and to the edition). Moreover, it important to note the following points, at present:

1. cataloguing rules are considering optional the analytical description of the content of a single publication: so it happens for the description of works contained in a collection or issued as subsidiary of a principal work; in this way not all the works of an author, contained in a publication, are registered but only those presented or recognised as the main work;2. for what concerns works, with or without an author, registered in a catalogue, both filing systems, the one based on the title proper and the other one on categories, do not completely fulfil Paris Principles’ requirements for which the same work has to appear in the same place of the catalogue.

Consequently, in searching by authors, catalogues are usually presenting an orderly sequence of specific editions (more than the works of an author) or an orderly mixture of single editions and of their classes (as works, represented by uniform titles). On the other hand, an analytical and rigorous development of relations/accesses, as required by the FRBR model, does not appear realistically applicable if not in computerised files.Undoubtedly, in the FRBR model titles are acquiring weight and importance ever since recognised to them. The key of the whole model is that it has been developed mainly with the scope of creating a correct relation between each author and his/her work, or expression of the work, to the realisation of which he/she has contributed (as translator, editor, etc.).

3. FRBR model’s innovations with regard to its application to a catalogue

The most innovative points of the model are, in our opinion, the following.

10/05/23 Pagina 5 di 16

1. It provides for responsibility relations to be, exactly and correctly, created/linked to the proper entity, be it a work, an expression or a manifestation, i.e. with the title which specifically represents them. We could briefly say: “for each author its title”.2. The content of items is firstly analysed from a textual point of view, distinguishing its integral or separate and separable components, without making, at least as a principle, any difference between the “primary” and the complementary or subsidiary ones (i.e., introductions, appendixes, comments, notes, illustrations, etc.), all bound to the be analysed in the same way in terms of work, expression and manifestation.3. Consequently, a neat distinction is made between responsibilities referred to a specific (separable) component and those transversal, realised in giving to the work a specific form (expression), through the action of an editor, translator, performer, etc.4. For what concerns transversal responsibilities the link is made with the expression, for the separable ones with the work. The more accurate attribution of responsibilities for each entity of the first group (work, expression, etc.) means a diminished importance of the distinction between principal and secondary responsibilities and a shifting of the point of view: from the attribution of the principal responsibility of a publication to the individualization of the principal component of the same, in the case we wouldn’t want to catalogue each one of its components (as a matter of fact we are not bound to individuate the principal component as such: each author is the principal one in respect to his/her work or to the specific realization of this in an expression).5. In the FRBR model the uniform title of a work, with or without author, acquires absolute priority since key element of the whole structure provided by the same model.

4. FRBR model’s advantages

FRBR model notably provides that each entity be individually identified (becoming in this way object of a registration of its own) and that it be linked to other entities, of the same or different type, to the specifically proper level.The advantage of the model are therefore two: 1) at theoretical, normative and scholar level it offers a logical and consistent frame of general applicability; 2) at a pragmatic level, it permits the development, in extended bibliographic data-bases, of searching user-friendly tools and facilities supplying at the same time more satisfactory results.Let’s think, for example, to a library owning more editions of the works of Jane Austen, and particularly more editions of the different Italian translations of Pride and prejudice. Following the model requirements, the heading for Jane Austen will be linked only one time to the uniform title of the work and not to each of all the editions owned. The heading for Giulio Caprin (one of the Italian translator of Pride and prejudice) will be linked just once to the standard designation of this translation (expression), while the single editions would furthermore have a unique link from the bibliographic record (related to the manifestation) to that of each single expression (see the enclosed example). From the point of view of the user, a search through the name of Jane Austen could result in displaying, in few

10/05/23 Pagina 6 di 16

lines, her works rather than a long list of all related editions; the user could then select that or those works for which he/she intends to see the different editions (and, subsequently, search for items owned by the library).

In conclusion: 1) from a logical and conceptual point of view, the analysis is articulated in more distinct and clear steps: instead of asking to ourselves if Jane Austen is the author of this publication, we are bound to register that: a) this publication is an edition of Pride and prejudice; b) Pride and prejudice is a work of Jane Austen; 2) for what concerns the creation and maintenance of bibliographic data, each entity is identified the first time, and than linked for ever to the proper level; 3) for what concerns searching the catalogue/data base, etc. the user can see, select or refuse, a whole entity or class: it can be displayed the “box” containing all the editions of Pride and prejudice (original or translated), with its label, rather than a list of the content of various different “boxes”. It is important to note that often automated catalogues already permit to the user, through their facilities, of selecting just the bulk of bibliographic records that would form the content of one of these “boxes”: a search made through the author "Sapegno, Natalino" and the word of the title "Commedia" probably permits to retrieve – we could say, in a post-coordinate modality – all and only the editions of the Divina commedia edited by Sapegno. But the fact that this entity is not identified autonomously (with an authority record of its own) does not make sure of the completeness of the final result and moreover, does not permit to display or select, as a unique entry, for those who started searching through "Sapegno", "Alighieri" or the Divina Commedia, the whole bulk of these editions.

5. The relations between entities provided in the FRBR model

The realisation of this logical model, as noted the IFLA Working Group, cannot avoid by identifying not only the work but also the expression, or in any case an intermediate level of aggregation between that of the work and that of the manifestation. FRBR model intends in fact to rigorously distinguish between the publishing product and a certain textual content which can be vehiculated (in principle always, realistically often), substantially identical, by various publishers’ materializations.Consequently, the bibliographic registration of the manifestation (more familiar to us, since based on the ISBD) it is the more adapt level to create links of responsibility related to the publishing product (manufacturer, publisher), rather than links of responsibility related to its textual content (authors, translaters, etc.). If the link of responsibility between Jane Austen and Pride and prejudice is more properly registered as a link between the authority heading for that person and the authority heading for that work (not at the level of the single editions), similarly the link of responsibility between Giulio Caprin and its Italian translation of Pride and prejudice results more correctly made at the level of the authority record related to this last one (the Italian translation, expression, of Pride and prejudice), rather than at the level of the bibliographic description of the various editions that this translation has had.

10/05/23 Pagina 7 di 16

FRBR

Actual (SBN)

10/05/23 Pagina 8 di 16

Pride and prejudice

[Pride and prejudice] [traduzione] [italiano] [Giulio Caprin]

Orgoglio e pregiudizio / Jane Austen. – [Milano] : A. Mondadori, 1971. – 387 p. : ill. ; 22 cm. – (Classici di ieri e di oggi per la gioventù). – Traduzione di G. Caprin.

Pride and prejudice

Orgoglio e prevenzione / Jane Austen ; traduzione di Giulio Caprin. – 3. ed. – [Milano] : A. Mondadori, 1970. – 539 p. : 1 ritr. ; 17 cm. – (Biblioteca romantica ; 15).

Austen, Jane

Caprin, Giulio

Austen, Jane

Orgoglio e pregiudizio / Jane Austen. – [Milano] : A. Mondadori, 1971. – 387 p. : ill. ; 22 cm. – (Classici di ieri e di oggi per la gioventù). – Traduzione di G. Caprin.

Orgoglio e prevenzione / Jane Austen ; traduzione di Giulio Caprin. – 3. ed. – [Milano] : A. Mondadori, 1970. – 539 p. : 1 ritr. ; 17 cm. – (Biblioteca romantica ; 15).

Caprin, Giulio

10/05/23 Pagina 9 di 16

6. Problems of redundancy in the FRBR model

Together with the possible advantages the FRBR model is offering us, we should take into account also the major problems that its application could involve.In the example presented above it is evident the semplification deriving from links to be created and maintened according to the model (a unique link between Jane Austen and Pride and prejudice, a unique link between Giulio Caprin and its translation of this work, a unique link between each edition of this translation and the record identifying the same translation).

On the contrary, it happens very often that we are cataloguing e.g., the unique published edition of a contemporary work, or of its unique Italian translation. In these cases, which have been defined as “bibliographic unicellular family” (where “works exist in only one version (= expression) and are published (= manifestation) only once, and they have neither “parent works” nor “sibling works”), for just one publication we should create several registrations (for the manifestation, the expression, the work, for the translator, the author) with the related proper links. In such occurrences the more analytical application of the FRBR model, would add absolutely nothing in terms of efficiency and functionality to searching and retrieval purposes.It should be noted that, at present, in these cases we are already usually creating registrations for the manifestation (the ISBD record), for the author and the translator (two authority headings) and, at least partially, also for the work and/or expression, with a record for the uniform/original title and, when necessary, for its variants.

7. Problems of entities’ identification

Besides the problems of the possible multiplication of entities, without a parallel effective benefit, the FRBR model arouses some doubts on the features for their identification and formulation, particularly regarding the new entity expression.

It seems opportune to deepen some aspects concerning entities’ identification both at the theoretical and at the practical level. For what concerns the first level and in a merely abstract way, we could hypothetically state that for each work exist one or few textual versions, well distinguished and well known, reproduced or reproducible without any variation (textual, not graphic) in several manifestations. The empirical analysis, made in the past and confirmed today, by philologists and bibliophiles on several old as well as current publications, has nevertheless underlined that textual variants can be found also between items pertaining to a same edition (this is the rule in older editions), and a fortiori between different editions which are not explicitly presented as modified or revised from a textual point of view.

According to FRBR “Strictly speaking, any change in intellectual or artistic content constitutes a change in expression. [...] no matter how minor the modification may be”, as well as each change of form (not physical, but for example “from an alpha-numeric notation to spoken word”) and/or of the “intellectual conventions or instruments that are employed to express a work” (e.g., a translation) result in the production of a new expression. We are however

10/05/23 Pagina 10 di 16

advised that variant expressions in the same form "will often be indirectly identified as different expressions because the variation is apparent from the data associated with an attribute used to identify the manifestation in which the expression is embodied (e.g., an edition statement)".

Practically, mostly in the case of contemporary not literary works, the expression, while abstractly defined on the basis of a full textual identity, is at risk of totally coinciding with the statement of edition supplied in the descriptions of the manifestations, at least when these are substantially correct (i.e. when they are not used by the publisher in lieu of mere re-issues). However, there are no guarantees, that we are facing a same expression simply because the related attributes are identical (e.g. in the case of editions of a same work issued by different publishers without explicit indications of changes in the intellectual content), nor that two expressions, considered as different on the basis of an attribute of the manifestation (the statement of edition), be it actually different (e.g., in the case of re-issues presented as new or subsequent editions).For these reasons it does not seem possible to define correctly the expression on the basis of complete textual identity: if we maintain this point, we should in principle to proceed to an accurate textual comparison and, as a result, we should identify different expressions practically for each manifestation (included a large part of re-issues) and often also for different items of a same edition. This is, in our opinion, an impracticable task at a larger extent, moreover it appears to be of dubious pertinence of cataloguers and, last but not least, usefulness from the cataloguing point of view.

It will therefore be useful to define the expression on the basis of a textual difference which could have a substantial and possibly explicit, declared, characteristic: that is, to consider it as a clustering tool of texts that, notwithstanding the fact that they could not be completely identical, are forming a recognisable sub-set – of interest to the users – within the whole set of texts representing a specific work. As a consequence, there would be some evaluations which cannot be made uniformly without troubles, in fact it could be difficult to standardise the border line from which it will be easily determined when we would be facing expressions of a same work and when it should be instead more correct and opportune recognising expressions of different works.

Coming back to the theoretical point of view, and accepting the concepts of work and expression as grouping devices useful to the user, it arouse a certain perplexity the idea of drawing a sharp separation between differences concerned with (textual) content and (graphic) form, between “literary” and “publishing” events. We should consider that contemporary products are very often, if not usually, “built up” in publishing houses, rather than merely expressed after having being textually conceived and realised. In the case of ancient books the forms of the “typographical enunciation" have been recognised as being part of the text significance. In short, the book or the document, appears to be an entity by its nature “hybrid”, double-faced, more than a mere vehicle of transmission of pre-existing, different contents. In such “hybrid” entity the “publishing” classes (e.g., the editions of a certain work made by a certain publisher, in various series or bindings) and the "literary" ones (e.g., the editions of a certain translation, also with several different publishers) appear to be strictly interlinked. They are not easy to be separated nor easy to be ranked.

10/05/23 Pagina 11 di 16

8. Problems of formulation for identification elements concerning entities

For what concerns the point: how to formulate standard forms of identification for different entities (which we could briefly call "headings"), the RICA SC has noted that, up to now, in the daily cataloguing the experience has been limited essentially to the definition of uniform titles for works issued in several editions, whereas the FRBR model requires to examine two other areas presenting at first sight more problems:1) the formulation of identifying elements for those contributions, physically separated or separable from the main text (e.g., introduction, comments, notes, etc.) materialised in the manifestation, which, at present, are not dealt through uniform titles;2) the formulation of identifying elements for the single different expressions of a same work.The formulation of these identifying elements (particularly the definition of a structure, of its various components, of their sequence in such structure and of the language to be used), if we think to the widespread practice of exchanging and re-using records in order to contain costs, will surely have to be thought, discussed and defined at international level.

8.1. The identification of supplementary contributions as works

The analysis of some specific cases has emphasised the fact that the representation of the content of the publications (manifestations) would require the identification not only of the expression published as main text, but also of the other textual separate or separable components, in the same publication (e.g., introductions, comments, notes, appendixes, illustrations, etc.). It is not a usual habit to deal with these contributions and to consider them as works, nor formulating an identifying uniform title for them, since in most cases they are lacking of a title proper or are bearing no distinctive names/titles (Foreword, Introduction, etc.), (in this way reads, for example, the Introduction to the RICA code). However, the names of persons responsible for each contribution represent a useful access point.

When the responsibility is both for these supplementary contributions and for the expression of the work issued (e.g., editor of the text and author of the Introduction), at least from a practical point of view it could be thought that an access point to the person, as responsible of the expression, could be enough for the purposes of the catalogue. In many other cases, however, the editor and/or author of introductions and notes it is not responsible of a particular expression of that work (e.g., for many literary classics he has used the text of a preceding philological edition, or for contemporary texts he has not made personally the translation). Consequently, in the FRBR model this need of access does not seem to be correctly dealt with, not at the manifestation level (to which are to be referred responsibilities of mere publishing kind) nor at the expression of the main work level (which is the adequate level for the translator or the editor, but not for the author of a supplementary contribution). The correct solution seems to be that

10/05/23 Pagina 12 di 16

of registering the contribution (introduction, comment, etc.) as a distinct work, with an author of its own, to be realised, on its turn, through several expressions.Being then necessary to identify (with a separate authority record) the single contribution, at least in the cases where the access through the related responsibility is thought relevant, it will be necessary to formulate or to build up a heading or uniform title, notwithstanding the fact that the contributions are usually lacking of title or are bearing a generic one, being identified only with the author’s name and the title of the main work (e.g., the comment of Natalino Sapegno to the Divina commedia).

It is important to note, on the other hand, that problems of identifications for these contributions (and, as we will see to next point, for the responsibilities linked to the expressions) are not provoked by the FRBR model, which simply contributed to emphasise them. Such problems are in fact emerging, for example, in any bibliographic text, related to an author’s works, including introductions, comments, summaries, translations, editing of volumes, etc. The FRBR model, providing for linking the responsibilities to the proper level, of the work or of the expression, and not to the manifestation level which is, at least in principle, only one of the possible many vehicles of that work or expression, make noticeable such contributions also to the cataloguing side, where we have been used to rapidly assign to a bibliographic record several personal (or body’s) access points which, strictly speaking, are instead to be referred to different components and layers of its textual content.

8.2. The identification of the expressions

For what concerns the expressions, it appears unusual, at first sight, the case where a certain expression could be identified through a title of its own, different from that generally used for referring to the work (e.g., the Fermo e Lucia of Manzoni, if we consider it an expression of the work I promessi sposi and not a distinct work).Usually, a particular expression will be instead identified only through a title not specifically of its own (i.e. adapt to identify all the expressions, such as Pride and prejudice or - in Italy - Orgoglio e pregiudizio, which are titles normally used for grouping every expression of the work of Jane Austen) and other elements, such as the date for more subsequent versions of an author; the editor for more philological editions; the language and, more over, the translator for the translations; the number of the edition for contemporary works. The heading for an expression, therefore, seems to be built up through a composite formula, that will generally contain (in a formal or implicit way) the indication of the referred work and the addition of further elements which can vary from case to case.

Which one can be the referred model to build up this heading? One model could surely be that of the uniform title, as it is at present conceived, with a range of possible increasing qualifications and additions, a model which has been poorly developed in the daily cataloguing but that has widely been applied and used in dealing with music works.Another possible model could be derived by the ISBD outline: while in our case we are not describing the characteristics of a physical object (the publication) and we are instead organising information, it is also true that we are organising

10/05/23 Pagina 13 di 16

exactly these information which are reflected in the first two areas of the standard description. Since information reported in these areas are of different kinds (responsibility, versions, dates, etc.), it could be useful to formalise them and to give them it a subdivision, at least for some aspect analogous to that introduced from ISBD into the description.A variant (or a third model?) of the first model could be represented from an explicitly “analytical-synthetic” approach: the title of the expression would not be formulated with the fusion of the abovementioned elements – e.g., “Pride and prejudice, in italiano (traduzione di Giulio Caprin)" – but automatically composed, e.g., in the following form (in which all elements, except obviously, the first one are optional):

[Title of the work] [kind of version] [language] [responsible for the version] [date].

Many of these elements, if not all, are already present in a UNIMARC bibliographic record and they could be retrieved and re-composed to this end.It could be noted on this matter, that MARC formats are including also a range of qualifications related to the kind of responsibilities (author, editor, translator, etc.) which, together with other information present in the same formats (such as the language and the genre), could already permit in the majority of cases, the retrieval or selection of bibliographic records related to particular expressions of a work, this also if lacking of a formalised identification for the same (i.e. of a specific authority record for the expression). The characteristic of this approach of being integrative or alternative on roles, in respect to that based on the entities proposed in the FRBR model, requires in any case to be more deeply analysed.

9. Conclusions

From what said above the RICA SC, while can express at general level a first order of conclusions, deems it opportune to emphasise that some specific points deserve a further deepened exam and need to be more widely verified and discussed.

The FRBR model per se can be the basis for an analysis directed to the realisation of relational data-bases or to the evolution of already available ones. In the FRBR study it is stated that in the application of the model it should be assessed the efficiency and the effectiveness of the structure patterned in the model. Advanced automated systems are already permitting the use and the application of a considerable part of the analytical relations provided by the model, but it is clear that an extended realisation of the same would require an evolution of the design and of the architecture of such systems. At present, there are not available applications or even prototypes of the model in its more extended structure.

The SC considers the proposed FRBR model as representing today the more complete and convincing reference frame to be followed and according to which it should be modelled the revision of the Italian cataloguing code and intends therefore proceed in this direction.

10/05/23 Pagina 14 di 16

However, before starting the application of this model and before articulating its provisions within the normative context of the code, the Commission deems it opportune a more deepened exam of the same. The main points which still appear to be not sufficiently solved or cleared, both on the theoretical level and for the applicable pragmatic and practical solutions, are the following:

the in-balance, evident in the case of “bibliographic unicellular families” representing a considerable percentage of records in our catalogues, between the multiplication of the entities title and the lack of benefits, in terms of effectiveness and functionality, for the organisation and the use of a file; benefits which would be logically expected in return, considering the high costs involved; the lack of an explicit provision, in the model, for an application of the same in a reduced form with the possibility of a progressive increase of the whole net of entities and relations; the sharp separation, for what concerns the expression and the manifestation, between differences of (textual) content and those related to the (graphic) form; together with the definition of the expression on the basis of a complete textual identity, while the criteria really applicable in this case appears to be different, of not easy definition, and more over not pertinent to the scope of catalogues, nor to the cataloguers’ task, as referred both to works of complex tradition and to products of contemporary publishers; the need of a standard formulation of identifying elements for separate or separable contributions in the main text; the need of a standard formulation of identifying elements for the single expressions.

The above points, fully illustrated and explained with accompanying examples, have been deeply discussed and examined together with Tom Delsey. Solutions proposed by the Commission on the various dubious points, raised during the analysis on the possibility of the FRBR model application to our cataloguing code, have been commonly accepted and have been furthermore expanded with their logical consequences and developments and we are now working on a further paper on this matter which will be soon available for further information and which should be the basis for starting to become operative on the new frame of the RICA code.

In conclusion, the RICA SC will go on with the analysis hoping that the further deepened examination and the need of widely verifying and discussing the model to define efficiently and consistently new cataloguing rules based on its entity relations logic could be shared at international level and within the library community all over the world. In order to reach this goal, the SC will devote its efforts for a widespread debate on these themes within the Italian library community and will operate to find more strict relations and active cooperation with international institutions (IFLA, ELAG, etc.) as well as with analogous organs in other countries, making available the contribute of its work.

Members of RICA Standing Commission for the revision of the Italian cataloguing rules:Giovanna Merola (Chair) (Former ICCU’s Director); Prof. Alberto Petrucciani (Pisa University, Faculty of Library Sciences); Fiorella Romano (Representative

10/05/23 Pagina 15 di 16

for the Ministry General Directory for Libraries, former Neaples Library Director); Roberto Di Carlo (Genoa University Library’s Director); Gloria Cerbai (Responsible for BNI – Italian National Bibliography, Florence National Central Library); Isa de Pinedo (retired, formerly Head of ICCU’s Cataloguing Methodologies and Training Dept.); Cristina Magliano (Head of ICCU’s Cataloguing Methodologies and Training Dept.); Maria Angarano Moscarelli (Head Neaples Library’s Cataloguing Dept.); Maria De Panicis (Head Rome National Central Library’s Cataloguing Dept.); Laura Bonanni (Secretary, ICCU’s Cataloguing Methodologies and Training Dept.); Former member: Stefania Rossi Minutelli (Head, Venice Biblioteca Marciana’s Cataloguing Dept.).For information: Laura Bonanni, Secretary. E-mail address: l.bonanni@iccu.sbn.it

10/05/23 Pagina 16 di 16