An XML-Based Representational Document Format for FRBR

  • Naimdjon Takhirov
  • Trond Aalberg
  • Maja Žumer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6724)


Metadata related to cultural items such as movies, books and music is a valuable resource that currently is exploited in many applications and services based on mashup and linked data. Unfortunately, existing metadata formats do not have the semantics needed for versatile integration and reuse of such information across domains and applications. The conceptual model in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records is a major contribution towards a solution, but the existing large body of legacy data makes a transition to this model difficult. In this paper we present a format for exchange of MARC-based information that makes the entities and relationships of the FRBR model explicit. The main purpose of this format is to enable the exchange of FRBR enriched MARC records while still maintaining compatibility with MARC-based systems.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aalberg, T., Žumer, M.: Looking for Entities in Bibliographic Records. In: Buchanan, G., Masoodian, M., Cunningham, S.J. (eds.) ICADL 2008. LNCS, vol. 5362, pp. 327–330. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Getting into RDF & Semantic Web using N3 (2005),
  3. 3.
    Boeuf, P.L.: FRBR and Further. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 32 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    California Digital Library. The Melvyl Recommender Project (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CIDOC. CRM Core (2005),
  6. 6.
    Dietterich, T.G.: An Experimental Comparison of Three Methods for Constructing Ensembles of Decision Trees: Bagging, Boosting, and Randomization. Journal of Machine Learning 40(2) (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freire, N., Borbinha, J.L., Calado, P.: Identification of FRBR Works Within Bibliographic Databases: An Experiment with UNIMARC and Duplicate Detection Techniques. In: Goh, D.H.-L., Cao, T.H., Sølvberg, I.T., Rasmussen, E. (eds.) ICADL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4822, pp. 267–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hickey, T.B., O’Neill, E.T., Toves, J.: Experiments with the IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). D-Lib Magazine 8(9) (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the WWW 1(1) (December 2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Library of Congress Network Development and MARC Standards Office. Functional analysis of the marc 21 bibliographic and holdings formats,
  11. 11.
    Rob Styles, D.A., Shabir, N.: Semantic MARC, MARC21 and the Semantic Web. In: Linked Data on the Web (LDOW 2008), Bejing, China (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Samwald, M., Cheung, K.-H.: Experiences with the conversion of SenseLab databases to RDF/OWL (2008),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naimdjon Takhirov
    • 1
  • Trond Aalberg
    • 1
  • Maja Žumer
    • 2
  1. 1.NTNUTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.University of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations