Use case 3: Complex term mapping between domains
There are significant differences in the criteria used for identifying and categorizing resources in commercial and bibliographic metadata. This use case introduces the general problem, then looks at a specific issue for a JISC-sponsored example.
Partly as a result of the FRBR initiative, libraries are increasingly identifying the underlying works and expressions of different manifestations. The main driver for this "FRBR-isation" is to enable users to find different expressions of the same works (or parts of works), and different manifestations of the same expressions, typically for resource discovery.
The publisher/producer communities make similar distinctions, but for different reasons, and so often with quite different results. Rights ownership, rather than bibliographic or educational criteria, is typically a major reason for differentiating resources in the commercial domain.
For example, a record producer may recognize a new "arrangement" of a musical work, despite there being negligible musical differences to the original, because the work is out of copyright and the arrangement copyright may be claimed without contention. On the other hand a musically "original" arrangement of (say) a Lennon and McCartney song will typically not be recognized because no rights would be likely to be granted. A bibliographic or academic approach will use quite different, typically musicological criteria. From the same set of resources a producer organization may recognize, say, 200 distinct "work" versions of Silent Night, but only one of Yesterday, while a music library might recognize twenty of each. Such mismatches are common in music, and with the establishment of the ISTC it is likely to become more common in the textual domains.
This issue arises in relation to the JISC SWAP (Scholarly Works Application Profile) for Dublin Core. This Application Profile requires vocabulary for relators between drafts and versions of refereed articles in the "workflow" process of the creation of scholarly works, from author through to publication, including the aggregation of works with other content (binding, illustrations, introductions etc); and through the de-composition of the same publications when content is made available to libraries etc. The British Library in particular has an interest in the latter.
It will be essential for such relationships to be clearly identified for the "FRBR-isation" of resources in library systems. The IFLA community is recognising that the definition of the granularity of works is contextual, and publisher and library views are functionally different. The identity and nature of a work in these circumstances is best determined by good relator metadata. Specific Relator terms are needed on both sides (publisher and library), and detailed mapping between them such as can be provided by the RDA/ONIX Framework.