Frbr oo a conceptual model for performing arts
Download
1 / 18

FRBR OO , a Conceptual Model for Performing Arts - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 265 Views
  • Uploaded on

FRBR OO , a Conceptual Model for Performing Arts. Martin Doerr*, Patrick LeBoeuf**, Chrysoula Bekiari*. * Center for Cultural Informatics Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas. ** Bibliotheque National de France, Paris, France. Athens,

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' FRBR OO , a Conceptual Model for Performing Arts' - Roberta


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Frbr oo a conceptual model for performing arts l.jpg

FRBROO, a Conceptual Model for Performing Arts

Martin Doerr*, Patrick LeBoeuf**, Chrysoula Bekiari*

* Center for Cultural Informatics

Institute of Computer Science

Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas

** Bibliotheque National de France,

Paris, France

Athens,

September 16, 2008


Documenting performing arts introduction l.jpg
Documenting Performing ArtsIntroduction

  • Who documents and preserves knowledge about Performing Arts?

  • Performing Arts is an expression of culture,

    • but it is not objects and not literature.

    • It is planned, heard and seen and then gone.

    • It may use objects and literature.

    • It may leave recorded memories and other traces of activities behind.

  • Records and objects may be found across museums, archives, libraries. Any institution would document differently. How to recognize the common facts behind?

  • We need to understand the relationships between museums, archives, libraries documentation. Performing Arts is a good showcase.


Archive library museum information l.jpg
Archive, Library, Museum Information

  • The typical library contents: “The whole stories”

    • Secondary literature (research results)

    • Facts brought into causal context

    • Categorical: theories and hypotheses

    • Fiction.

  • The typical archive contents: “The needle in the haystack”

    • Primary sources, “bits and pieces”(letters, legal documents, administration acts, images, scientific records).

    • factual, kept in the sequence of creation, as by the creator or responsible.

  • The typical museum information: “Museum objects rarely talk”

    • Factualdocumentation of properties and context per object, references, classification

    • Highly heterogeneous, disparate.


Museum information a monet is not like a dinosaur l.jpg
Museum Information “A Monet is not like a Dinosaur”

  • Museum objects may be:

    • Unique in form,valuableout of context

      • Valued art objects: “La Pie by Monet”, aesthetic minerals, exceptional life forms, curiosities. Could be a

    • Uniqueby particular context,not valuableout of context, valuable only asillustration or symbol,

      • Historical heirlooms, relics of saints, “John Lennon’s T-Shirt”

    • Not unique, not particularly valuable. Used asexampleof a category out of the particular context

      • Most objects in Natural History, ethnology, archeology.

    • Uniquebyrarity,valuable asevidenceout of a particular context

      • Most objects in paleontology, many unique archeological objects: “6th left rib from a T. Rex”


Information integration management objects and knowledge l.jpg
Information Integration ManagementObjects and Knowledge

  • The ultimate goal of users seeking information is not to get an “object” but to understand a topic.

  • Understanding lives from relationships:

    • objects are interpreted by context (e.g., bone finds inEvan’s “bathtubs”)

    • contexts are interpreted by objects (e.g., many arrowheads in Troy IV)

    • objects are interpreted by categories (e.g., Evan’s Minoan “bathtubs”)

    • categories are supported by examples (e.g., the shape of a kris)

    • categories may be based on rare evidence (e.g., a hominid tooth)

  • We need to integrate museum, archives, libraries in a sensible way

    to find integrated knowledgeand produce new knowledge, to provideevidence for new hypotheses or verify or challenge old hypotheses.


Information integration management library and museum information l.jpg
Information Integration ManagementLibrary and Museum Information

  • Museum and library information has complex interrelations. Museum and library information overlaps, and otherwise is different.

    • Libraries document literature in order to facilitate access to it.

    • Museum documentation classifies and describes museum objects, their context and relevance. It refers to literature. Museums produceregularly (secondary) literature.

    • Museum objects are referred to and published in literature. Literature may describe museum objects, their context and theories about and related to them. Literature describes concepts that are exemplified or illustrated by museum objects.No standard documentation format yet for that!

    • Libraries may also produce literature. Libraries may document and curate rare objects as museums do. Most museums maintain libraries.


Information integration management relations of archive library and museum information l.jpg
Information Integration ManagementRelations of Archive, Library and Museum Information

Libraries

Museums

publish

document

features & context

provide finding aids

illustrate,

exemplify

using

refer to

Books

Objects

are about

make narratives

from

provide

finding aids

Archives

primary Documents


The frbr crm harmonization the harmonization project l.jpg
The FRBR - CRM HarmonizationThe Harmonization Project

  • Formation in 2003 of the International Working Group on FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation:

    • A collaboration of CIDOC CRM-SIG and the IFLA FRBR Review Group.

    • To express the IFLA FRBR model with the concepts, ontological methodology and notation conventions provided by the CIDOC CRM.

    • To facilitate the integration, mediation and interchange of bibliographic and museum information.

    • Summer 2008, complete text “FRBROO” reviewed by IFLA. Definition available as text in the format of the CRM.

    • Other forms: A comprehensive text with all related CRM definitions and complete mappings FRBRER to FRBROO, OWL/RDF files, VISIO graphics.

    • Work continues with an “FRBR Core” model, as extension of CRM Core.


The frbr crm harmonization crm l.jpg
The FRBR - CRM HarmonizationCRM

  • The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM)

    • developed since 1996 by CIDOC / ISO TC46, now ISO 21127:2006

    • a core ontology aiming to integrate cultural heritage information

  • Innovations:

    • centre descriptions not around the things, but around the events that connect people, material and immaterial things in space-time.

    • explicit description of the discourse on relations between identifiers and the identified.

    • typologies modeled both as classification means and as objects of the cultural-historical discourse.

  • Covers performances as activities, but lacks a model of intellectual work.


The frbr crm harmonization crm history as meetings l.jpg
The FRBR - CRM HarmonizationCRM: history as meetings

t

Victory!!!

coherence volume of second announcement

coherence volume of first announcement

2nd Athenian

Victory!!!

1st Athenian

other

Soldiers

runner

coherence volume of the battle of Marathon

Marathon

S

Athens


The frbr crm harmonization frbr l.jpg
The FRBR - CRM HarmonizationFRBR

  • The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)

    • developed 1992-1997 by IFLA, now being complemented by the Functional Requirements for Authority Files (FRAR)

    • A core ER model to integrate library objects by content relation

    • Intended to formulate a new library practice

  • Innovations:

    • Definition of stages/ abstraction levels of intellectual products: Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item.

    • Clusters publications and items around the notion of derivation, complement and common conceptual origin across stages / abstraction levels.

  • Lacks: explicit notion of the processes behind. Partially ambiguous definitions (overgeneralization).

  • Thought to cover performing arts, but cannot describe temporality (events).


The frbr crm harmonization frbr abstraction levels l.jpg
The FRBR - CRM HarmonizationFRBR : Abstraction Levels

has part

has a complement

has a successor

has a summary

has a supplement

has a transformation

has adaptation

has an imitation

“a distinct intellectual or artistic creation…

there is no single material object

one can point to as the work...”

Work

isrealized through

(is a realization of)

has part

“the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the

form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic

notation, sound, image, object, movement, etc”

has a complement

has a successor

has a summary

has a supplement

has a transformation

has adaptation

has an imitation

Expression

isembodied in

(is the embodiment of )

“the physical embodiment of an expression of a

work…all the physical objects that bear the same

characteristics…

…may be only a single physical exemplar…”

has part

Manifestation

isexemplified by

(exemplifies )

has part

“a single exemplar of a manifestation...”

Item


The frbr crm harmonization results the externalization process l.jpg
The FRBR - CRM HarmonizationResults: The “externalization” process

E65

Creation

E12

Production

E28

Conceptual

Object

F31 Expression

Creation

F40 Carrier

Production

Event

F3 Manifestation

Production Type

R9 comprises

carriers of

R41 produced

(was produced by)

R49 created a

realization of

R22

created

E24

Physical

Man-Made

Thing

F1 Work

E84

Information

Carrier

F2 Expression

R45 created

R10 belongs

to type

R56 is realized in

F23 Expression

Fragment

F21 Complex

Work

F46 Individual

Work

F20 Self Contained

Expression

F4 Manifestation

Singleton

F5 Item


A model of performing arts incorporation a new relationship l.jpg
A Model of Performing Arts: Incorporation – a new relationship

  • R2 is derivative of (has derivative):

    • R2.1 has type:

  • R1 is logical successor of (has successor):

    • R2.1 has type:

  • R14 incorporates (is incorporated in):

    This property associates an instance of F22 Self-Contained Expression with an instance of F2 Expression that was included in it and that is a realisation of an independent work. The incorporated expression may be self-contained or fragmentary.

“has a summary”

“has a transformation”

“has adaptation”

“has an imitation”

“has a complement”

“has a successor”

“has a supplement”


A model of performing arts basic classes l.jpg
A Model of Performing Arts: Basic Classes

Conceptual Objects

Activities

F20 Performance Work

F2 Expression

R19 created a realisation of

(was realised through)

R12 is realised in (realises)

R14 incorporates (is incorporated in)

F28 Expression Creation

R17 created

(was created by)

F25 Performance Plan

R25 performed

(was performed in)

F31 Performance

R66 recorded

(was recorded though)

COLLOCATION!

R22 realised

(was realised through)

F21 Recording Work

F29 Recording Event

(performances may

not be recorded)

R13 is realised in (realises)

R21 created

(was created by)

R14 incorporates (is incorporated in)

Participants may write

up other memories

F26 Recording


A model of performing arts derivation and incorporation chains l.jpg
A Model of Performing Arts: Derivation and Incorporation Chains

F21 Complex Work

Henry IV

F54 Container Work

R12 has member

(is member of)

R12 has member

(is member of)

R12 has member

(is member of)

F46 Individual Work

Henry IV part 1

F46 Individual Work

Henry IV part 2

R1 has logical

successor

R58 derivative of (has derivative)

F46 Individual Work

Henry IV part 1 Adaptation

F51 Performance Work

Henry IV part 1 idea of mise-en-scene

F53 Recording Work

Henry IV part 1 recording work

R68 realised ( was realised through)

R49 created a realisation of

(was realised through)

R49 created a realisation of

(was realised through)

F55 Recording Event

Recording Performance 25/12/07

F31 Expression Creation

Expression creation of Adaptation of Henry IV part 1

F31 Expression Creation

Expression creation of Henry IV part 1 mise-en-scene

R66 recorded

(was recorded though)

F52 Performance

Performance 25/12/07

R70 is realised in (realises)

R56 is realised in (realises)

R69 is realised in (realises)

R22 created

(was created by)

R22 created

(was created by)

R64 performed (was performed in)

R67 created

(was created by)

F20 Self-Contained Expression

Henry IV part 1 Adaptation Text

F50 Performance Plan

Henry IV part 1 “mise-en-scene”

F56 Recording

DVD Henry IV part 1 Play 25/12/07

R63 incorporates (is incorporated in)

R63 incorporates (is incorporated in)


A model of performing arts a documentation case l.jpg

F20 Performance Work

F25 Performance Plan

E24 Physical Man-Made Thing

E24 Physical Man-Made Thing

E33 Linguistic Object

E24 Physical Man-Made Thing

E24 Physical Man-Made Thing

Sergei Radlov's conceptions about how to stage King Lear

Sergei Radlov's indications about how to perform King Lear

Wooden model elements held at BnF

Photographs held at BnF

Manuscript held at BnF

S. Galkin's Yiddish translation of King Lear

Manuscriptscore held at BnF

F52 Performance

at the Moscow State Jewish Theatre, 1935

E31 Document

E38 Image

E73 Information Object

E38 Image

Lev Pulver'sincidental music

A. Tyshler'sstage setting

Visual contentof photographs

A Model of Performing Arts: A Documentation Case

R12 is realized in (realizes)

R25 performed(was performed in)

P129 is about(is subject of)

R14 incorporates (is incorporated in)

P70 documents(is documented in)

E33 Linguistic Object

English comments by Edward Gordon Craig on the performances of King Lear at the Moscow State Jewish Theatre in 1935 in Radlov’s mise-en-scène

P128 carries(is carried by)

P128 carries(is carried by)

P128 carries(is carried by)

P128 carries(is carried by)


Slide18 l.jpg

A Model of Performing Arts Conclusions

  • Documenting Performing Arts is confusing: Conceptions, repeated patterns, recordings, and the actual volatile events are hard to distinguish in our mind.

  • CRM & FRBROO form a consistent whole:

    • CRM already captures consistently the event aspect: participants (actors, recorders, audience), used things, space and time.

    • FRBR adds the intellectual work chain.

    • FRBRoo detects a new relationship of intellectual products: The recording may “incorporate”, rather than “represent” the performance plan.

    • Recording and performance are seen as one coherent activity.

  • To our knowledge the most comprehensive model for documenting performing arts in ALM.

  • A nice example how archive, museum and library information can be integrated based on sense making relations.


ad