FRBROO, a Conceptual Model for Performing Arts

Martin Doerr1, Patrick Le Boeuf2, Chryssoula Bekiari1

1
Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas,
Heraklion, Crete, Greece
{martin, bekiari}@ics.forth.gr
2
Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, France
[email protected]

Abstract
There are increasing efforts to provide integrated access to archive, library and
museum information. When it comes to creating information systems, the deep
difference in the organizational cultures becomes apparent. Working groups from
CIDOC-ICOM and IFLA have come together from 2003 to 2008 to analyze how
museum and library conceptualization relates and have built a common conceptual
model. It includes an innovative model of performing arts from a documentation
perspective. This paper argues on the example of performing arts how the common
model can be used to integrate information across institutions in a more effective way
than by current approaches. The work on this model revealed an important generic
form of creative activity, the “incorporation” of an expression of a work in the
expression of a work of another form or kind.

1 Introduction
For a number of years, museums, archives and libraries have been increasingly mentioned together in
political efforts to cross-correlate their knowledge and bring it closer to the public by the new
communication means. These memory institutions, as they are sometimes called, play an important role
in our societies to preserve their knowledge and to keep it accessible to those who need it. They are a
product of our culture and take part in shaping what we regard as our cultural identity.

When it comes to designing and employing information systems, the deep difference in the
organizational culture of libraries, archives and museums becomes apparent. Libraries have a long
tradition in sharing knowledge. They are extremely well organized, provide services which respond to
user requests in large scale, and have achieved considerable national and world-wide standardization
and interoperability. Most of the material they keep is accessible to the user, in a more or less direct
way. The use of computer-based information systems is the rule.

Archives present a more secluded image. There are international standards for their documentation
formats. They keep huge amounts of relatively uniform items originating in some common context.
Various levels of description are in use; many collections are documented only at the highest level, and
the content of the individual items they consist of has never been looked at, while some collections are
described in detail. Access to the physical contents is typically granted to individual researchers.

Museums on the other side are a magnet for the public and even tourism. They present to the public
objects in a way they select and they make us conscious about our cultural identity and other valuable
knowledge. Access to the physical objects hidden in stage locations may be granted to individual
researchers. Most objects are still documented on paper and not accessible to the public. In contrast to
archives and libraries, many museums act as information centers for the scientific questions
themselves, rather than about how to find information or the objects they keep.
The grand vision is to see all these data sets integrated so that users are effectively supported in
searching for and analyzing data across all domains. So, why not use the experience of libraries to
bring archives and museums on the same level? All of them keep some objects and their knowledge
about them. This more than reasonable requirement is frequently oversimplified to the question: “Why
should we use different information systems? Museum and library information should be the same!”
Only a comprehensive analysis of the nature of the information that makes up the cultural heritage kept
by those institutions can reveal how the information is effectively brought together.

Therefore working groups of CIDOC-ICOM and IFLA have collaborated over the past five years and
developed a common understanding of how library and museum information relates to each other, and
developed a common modular core ontology, the CIDOC CRM1 and FRBROO2, to formally capture the
underlying concepts necessary for integrated information systems. We present here the core ideas of
this common understanding and illustrate the common model on the part developed last, the model of
performing arts as a subject of documentation. Performing arts stand in themselves outside of the core
of library, museum and archive information, but relate to all of them in a complex way. To our surprise,
this work revealed the importance of a basic mechanism of intellectual work overseen so far in this
generality, the incorporation of one “Expression” in another.

2 The Harmonization Project

The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM) has been developed since 1996 under the auspices of
the International Committee on Documentation (CIDOC) of the International Council for Museums
(ICOM) Documentation Standards Working Group. This is occurring with the initiative and support of
ICS-FORTH, Heraklion, and the CRM was accepted as an ISO standard, namely ISO 21127, in 2006.
It is a core ontology aiming to integrate cultural heritage information [2,6,9]. It already generalizes over
most data structures used by highly diverse museum disciplines, archives, and site and monument
records. Even the common library format MARC (‘MAchine Readable Cataloguing’) can be
adequately mapped to it. Its innovation is to centre descriptions not around the things, but around the
events that connect people, material and immaterial things in space-time. Further, it explicitly describes
the discourse on relations between identifiers and the identified, a powerful feature for the integration
of information assets. Finally it bridges the role of typologies as classification systems with their nature
as objects of the cultural-historical discourse.

Quite independently, the FRBR model (‘Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records’) was
designed as an entity-relationship model by a study group appointed by the International Federation of
Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) during the period 1991-1997. It was published in 1998. Its
innovation is to cluster publications and other items around the notion of a common conceptual origin –
the ‘Work’ - in order to support information retrieval. It distinguishes four levels of abstraction from
ideational content to the physical thing in hand: The Work, Expression, Manifestation, Item. Its focus is
domain-independent and can be regarded as the most advanced formulation of library conceptualization
[3,8].

Initial contacts in 2000 between the two communities eventually led to the formation in 2003 of the
International Working Group on FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation. It is headed by Martin Doerr
from ICS-FORTH and Patrick Le Boeuf from BNF Paris, and brings together representatives from both
communities. The common goals were to express the IFLA FRBR model with the concepts,

1
http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/official_release_cidoc.html
2
http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/frbr_drafts.html
ontological methodology and notation conventions provided by the CIDOC CRM, and to merge the
two object-oriented models thus obtained. The work started with an investigation of the utility of such a
model. Part of this was a more detailed analysis than currently has been published of how library and
museum information relates to each other [10,11,12]. In 11 meetings over the past five years and much
“homework”, the Working Group has finalized the complete draft of FRBROO, i.e. the object-oriented
version of FRBR, expressed as a specialization of the CIDOC CRM, in spring 2008 and submitted to
IFLA for public review and approval.

In parallel, the CIDOC CRM itself has been adapted in several details to represent a true generalization
of all concepts and relationships in FRBROO, and adopted some generic concepts from FRBROO. After
approval by CIDOC, the respective amendments to the CIDOC CRM and other changes that were
found to be useful in the years after ISO21127 entered the final approval phase by ISO will be
submitted to ISO by the end of 2008.

3 The Relationships of Library and Museum Information

The traditional and primary task of library catalogues is to facilitate access to the information
contained in the literature kept by a library. This also applies to digital libraries and integrated
electronic cataloguing services that are detached from keeping a physical object. Therefore metadata
are created to support the finding of literature.

In remote times, a library catalogue was an inventory of the physical objects kept by a given library;
with the advent of printing, however, and mass production of copies regarded as functionally
equivalent, librarians’ efforts tended to concentrate on the description of the abstract characteristics of
publications rather than physical exemplars, as that level of description can be shared by two libraries
that hold distinct copies of the same publication, while the characteristics of one physical exemplar are
only relevant to the library which holds that exemplar. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic
Descriptions) focus exclusively on that level and contain no prescription as to how the particular
features of an individual exemplar should be documented. MARC formats were primarily developed to
share information about publications. As a consequence, library catalogues are scarcely more than
bibliographies to which call numbers are added, and the integration in a library’s general catalogue of
the description of special materials (annotated copies, grey literature, preparatory dummies, archival
materials…) held by that library can prove at times extremely difficult. In particular, a unique object
such as a mediaeval manuscript can be described in such catalogues only at the price of puzzling
distinctions; manuscript annotations are not recorded the same way if they were made on a unique
manuscript or on a printed copy of a publication. On the other hand, if information about the
publication level can be shared by libraries, the role of cataloguing rules is also to ensure that two
distinct librarians describing two copies of the same publication will produce (ideally) identical
descriptions of that publication. The FRBR study [8] expresses the basic functions that a library
catalogue should support as: to find (i.e., to retrieve information after a query on a given criterion), to
identify (i.e., to make sure that the object you hold and the object described in the database are really
identical under some aspect, e.g. both are copies of the same publication), to select (i.e., to know
precisely under which aspects two similar objects described in the database actually differ from each
other), and to obtain (i.e., to be enabled to actually access the object described in the database).

The traditional and primary task of museum inventories can be seen to document the cultural or
scientific relevance of the objects kept by a museum, and implicitly to justify the reason for their
preservation. In order to do so they classify objects, describe their physical characteristics and their
history, i.e. the contexts of creation, use, finding, modification, change of ownership and custody. The
kind of relevance may vary extremely between different objects. A T-shirt from a pop-star, the sword
of a king, an archaeological potsherd, a piece of traditional pottery, a pinned bee, or a painting by
Monet are kept for quite heterogeneous reasons. Some objects are unique in their aesthetic form. Some
are unique witnesses of a culture, some only characteristic ones. Some are examples, prototypes or
archetypes of categories of things or life forms. Some were just present at a remarkable event.
Accordingly, documentation may look at quite different angles and have quite different formats.

Unique objects in the one or other sense dominate museums. Therefore the discourse about their
identity focuses on tracing an object through its history and through the museum locations. For
instance, museums register unique marks and inscriptions and distinguishing features in order to
support identification [13]. Traditionally, access is more an in-house problem. The curator may decide
which object to show in an exhibition, and to which researchers to grant access to the stored objects,
which is justified with the fragility and value of many objects. Curators themselves regularly research
their objects and write publication about them. With the possibility to create cheap digital surrogates of
museum objects, traditional access policy becomes obsolete, and there are social and political demands
to open up all museum information to the interested public.

The different primary focus of museums and libraries has still a bearing both on the opinion what a
core documentation standard might be, and on the awareness of all the functions that might be better
supported. But indeed, their functions overlap: Both may deal with a physical inventory of objects.
Museums may deal with non-unique objects of specific types, such as automobile museums. Libraries
may deal with unique objects, such as manuscripts. Many museums include a library. Increasingly,
libraries are researching their objects and produce literature. Even though most library documentation
is not primarily targeted at being historical records of what existed and has happened in the world, the
implicit notions of context and explicit notions of identity are regarded increasingly as a source of
historical knowledge. For all those functions, it is wise to learn from each other’s concepts and to find
common ways to deal with common tasks.

It is however equally important to understand the differences. For instance, an inventory of common
books and one of valuable paintings will require some distinct treatment. But even if we exploit all
commonalities and cater for all differences, we have not yet answered what the relationship between a
typical museum object and a typical library item is, that would justify an integrated catalogue. The
popular Dublin Core approach assumes that the relevant relationships could be represented by common
attribute values. This will indeed allow for selecting paintings and books created by the same painter,
or things of a particular category and books specialized to this particular category. Both cases are
relatively irrelevant compared to the effort: how many authors create things kept in museums? Books
about categories of things, such as biological objects, ethnological items, archaeological finds etc.,
normally describe many categories or objects together. A respective retrieval of museum information
would return huge quantities of things. A reasonable selection of museum objects would not
correspond to a selection of the relevant literature about those things.

To our opinion, the dominant kinds of relationships are the following:

• Subject relation: Museum objects are referred to and published in literature. Literature describes
the museum objects, their context and theories about and related to them. It describes the
creators, discoverers or users of the objects. It compares objects.
• Reference relation: Frequently, museum documentation could refer to explicit citations in
literature about an object, a related person or location, which is not apparent from the respective
 literary subject. This relation should probably not be regarded as symmetrical (i.e., a user could
be allowed to go seamlessly from the description of a museum object to the description of
books, CD-ROMs, DVDs etc. that refer to that object, while there is no point in allowing a user
to go from the description of a book to the descriptions of all the objects referred to in that
book).
• Event-mediated relations, such as things, people and literature used, produced or present at
itineraries, discoveries, excavations, battles, conferences and performances.

We believe that a satisfactory integrated access structure to museum and library information should
contain:
• Access by a homogeneous documentation of shared attributes, such as creator etc.
• Access to things and literature by explicitly documented related events or activities.
• Access to literature by characteristics of referred objects as documented for the objects.
• Access by explicit subject relationship between literature and things.

Particularly enlightening in this context is to understand performing arts from a point of view of
memories they create and how they are documented: They attract much of our cultural attention, but
since their very substance is volatile - temporary activities in space-time - they are not kept as such in
memory institutions. However, performances may be based on texts or musical scores kept in libraries,
possibly adapted for the particular run, they may use equipment, costumes, organs kept in museums,
witnesses may write about them, and recordings may be kept in libraries or museums. A play, the stage
director, the actors, the recorders represent different streams of activities, interests and memories that
meet in the performance. Their relations are event-mediated.

4 A model of Performing Arts

The case of performing arts is particularly interesting in the context of an effort toward a unified
conceptualization of information produced by libraries and museums (and archives), precisely because
there is no widely accepted agreement on the type of institution that should be in charge of the cultural
heritage produced in that domain. A look at the Web page of the SIBMAS (International Association of
Libraries and Museums of the Performing Arts) entitled “National Collections”
(<http://www.sibmas.org/English/Collections.html>) will show a variety of situations: there are
national theatre museums in Portugal, Austria, Slovenia, Greece, etc.; national theatre libraries in Italy
and France (in the latter it is actually a department of the National Library of France); a documentation
centre for the theatre in Andalusia; and “theatre institutes” (whatever the term may cover) in the
Netherlands and in Barcelona. National theatre museums, however, are the most frequent case; but all
theatre museums include a library or documentation centre, and all theatrical libraries are likely to hold
at least some objects that one would expect to find in a museum. Additionally, documentation about
performing arts can be found in archives (for instance, there is a huge collection on theatrical
censorship in the Archives nationales de France). Although the SIBMAS has a Cataloguing and
Bibliographic Control Commission, there is virtually no standardization at the international level, and
each institution follows the rules that apply to the category it belongs to: the Commission’s Web page
(<http://www.sibmas.org/English/CBCC.html>) lists standards for archives, libraries, and museums,
without prescribing any one of them in particular.

The essence of (live) performing arts resides in that they are the only cultural field in which the process
through which the cultural “artifact” is perceived cannot be separated from that cultural artifact itself.
When a poet writes a poem, when a painter produces a painting, there is a spatio-temporal process of
production, which results in a distinct, physical carrier of the poet’s or painter’s creation; once that
process is over, any individual can perceive that creation at any time, even long after the creator’s
death. As long as a carrier of the creation exists, it is available for a distinct spatio-temporal process of
perception: “I am looking here and now at a painting that was produced in May-June 1647;” the painter
does not have to produce his painting afresh every time I want to look at it. In the case of performing
arts, the process of perception necessarily covers in time and space the process of performance: if there
is no performer involved in an activity of performance when I am willing and ready to perceive, I
cannot perceive anything at all, because there is nothing to be perceived.

What is the “thing” I perceive when I attend a performance – beyond the mere process of performance?
Performers must perform something. They can extemporize, without any preparation, without any
premeditation, on the spot. More often than not, however, they know in advance what they will
perform, and they have rehearsed in order to convey some cultural artifact through the process of
performance. They may not know in advance and in detail how the performance will take place (indeed
they cannot know – any accident may happen), but they have a clear idea of what they intend to do.
They may begin discussing and conceiving an overall ideation of the intellectual/emotional content
they intend to convey to their audience, that may result in multiple realizations, or even being taken up
and continued at another time and by others. We call such an ideation a “performance work.”

These ideas may result in a concrete performance plan, i.e. the foreseen sequence of actions they will
perform over time, including motion, speech, sound, optical presentations and equipment to use. To put
it in very rough terms, the performance work is a “what,” and the performance plan is a “how.” The
performance itself is just the event, which follows more or less the plan. Multiple runs may follow the
same plan, being adapted in between or not.

FRBROO declares therefore three classes: F20 Performance Work, F25 Performance Plan, and F31
Performance, interrelated as follows:
– F20 Performance Work R12 is realized in (realizes) F25 Performance Plan,
– F31 Performance R25 performed (was performed in) F25 Performance Plan.

Now, in most cases, performances are based on some pre-existing material (the text of a play, a musical
score, etc.), and may imply the creation of new material which is required for the performance to take
place (scenery, costumes, lighting effects, etc.). This particular relation is modeled in FRBROO through
the following property:
– F25 Performance Plan R14 incorporates (is incorporated in) F2 Expression.

This property expresses the fact that the text of Shakespeare’s Hamlet or the musical notation of
Mozart’s Symphony No. 41 becomes a “part” of a given performance plan, while the conceptual aspects
of both performance and pre-existing material remain independent. The stage director and the
conductor elaborate on sets of signs that convey Shakespeare’s work (possibly in a debatable
translation) and Mozart’s work (possibly in a poor edition with many notational mistakes), but
Shakespeare’s work and Mozart’s work cannot be said to be “included” in the stage director’s work and
the conductor’s work. The inclusion relationship holds only at the level of signs.

As a matter of fact, it was recognized, during the process of developing FRBROO, that such a construct
was in no way specific to performing arts. Quite a number of cultural activities imply the
“incorporation” of sets of signs that initially served to realize a distinct creation. The R14 property was
therefore eventually generalized at a higher level:
– F22 Self-Contained Expression R14 incorporates (is incorporated in) F2 Expression.
For instance, if the performance plan for a performance of Mozart’s opera entitled “Don Giovanni” R14
incorporates (is incorporated in) Mozart’s musical notation, it is also true, in turn, that Mozart’s
musical notation itself R14 incorporates (is incorporated in) Lorenzo Da Ponte’s Italian text. By the
way, the performance plan may actually incorporate Mozart’s musical notation, and a German
translation of the libretto. This construction can be extended to the notion of publication itself: a
publisher determines the set of signs (including cover illustration, typeface, etc.) that will be conveyed
by the publication, and that incorporates the authorial text: F24 Publication Expression R14
incorporates (is incorporated in) F2 Expression. Similarly, a collection of poems incorporates the
individual poems in the collection. In a way, the intellectual contribution to the incorporated
expressions can be seen as “adding value” of a different quality to it. We call a work which is mainly
aiming at adding such value to expressions of other work a container work.

Figure 1 shows how the model for performing arts which is part of the FRBROO conceptualization
relates to the CIDOC CRM.

E89 Propositional Object E90 Symbolic Object

is a is a

R14 incorporates
is a F2 Expression (is incorporated in)

F1 Work is a

F22 Self-Contained Expression

E29 Design or Procedure

is a is a
is a
E7 Activity
F16 Container Work
F25 Performance Plan

is a is a
R12 is realized in R25 performed
(realizes) (was performed in)
F20 Performance Work F31 Performance

Figure 1: The model of Performing Arts

Once F20 Performance Work, F25 Performance Plan, and F31 Performance were declared in FRBROO,
they were available, through their respective positions in the class hierarchy, for any kind of discourse
modeled in both FRBROO and CIDOC CRM, in particular for subject and reference relations. As
already stated above, the very essence of performances cannot be curated in archives, libraries and
museums, but theatrical collections consist of materials that are either elaborations about that essence,
or witnesses of how it came into being. For instance, prompter books provide glimpses of performance
plans; photographs document performances; two-dimensional models for costumes provide images
incorporated in performance plans, along with the text of the play; press clippings make statements
about performance works, etc. Figure 2 shows a real-life example from the National Library of France
(BnF):
 R12 is realized in (realizes)
F20 Performance Work F25 Performance Plan
Sergei Radlov's conceptions Sergei Radlov's indications
about how to stage King Lear R25 performed about how to perform King Lear
(was performed in)

P129 is about
(is subject of) F52 Performance
at the Moscow State R14 incorporates (is incorporated in)
P70 documents Jewish Theatre, 1935
(is documented in)

E33 Linguistic Object E31 Document E73 Information Object E38 Image E33 Linguistic Object
E38 Image
Lev Pulver's A. Tyshler's S. Galkin's Yiddish
English comments by
Visual content incidental music stage setting translation of King Lear
Edward Gordon Craig
of photographs
on the performances
of King Lear at the
Moscow State Jewish
Theatre in 1935 in P128 carries P128 carries P128 carries
Radlov’s mise-en- (is carried by) (is carried by) (is carried by)
scène

P128 carries E24 Physical Man-Made Thing E24 Physical Man-Made Thing
(is carried by) Photographs held at BnF Wooden model elements held at
BnF
E24 Physical Man-Made Thing E24 Physical Man-Made Thing

Manuscript held at BnF Manuscript score held at BnF

Figure 2: Example from BnF of performance-related things and documents.

Documentation on performing arts can also be more direct, through audio or audiovisual recordings.
FRBROO models also the activity of recording an event and the outcomes of such an activity, in the
following manner:
– F29 Recording Event R20 recorded (was recorded through) E5 Event
– F29 Recording Event R22 created a realization of (was realized through) F21 Recording Work
– F29 Recording Event R21 created (was created through) F26 Recording
– F21 Recording Work R13 is realized in (realizes) F26 Recording.

An instance of F26 Recording is just a set of signs (analogue or digital), which can be carried by either
a unique instance of F4 Manifestation Singleton (e.g., a recording master tape), or multiple instances of
F5 Item (e.g., all the CDs released in one publication event). Once again, the R14 property allows us to
express the fact that a recording incorporates signs from pre-existing materials, e.g.: a recording of
John Gielgud reading Hamlet (F26 Recording) R14 incorporates aspects of John Gielgud’s
performance plan (F25 Performance Plan), which in turn R14 incorporates Shakespeare’s text (F2
Expression and E33 Linguistic Object).

5 Conclusions and Future Work

The presented model of performing arts is a specialization of the CIDOC CRM and part of
FRBROO. Thereby it inherits all properties about the context of activities, such as the people and things
present, and the properties and history of those things. From the rest of FRBROO, it inherits all
properties of the relationships between the entities of intellectual work. So, instances encoded in a data
structure equivalent to this model are capable to describe in a coherent way how intellectual products,
such as plays and musical scores, come together with people, leaving physical evidence of their plans,
wearing costumes in performances, being recorded and the recordings becoming market products etc.
So indeed, it provides a detailed model of how all this material about one or more performances, found
distributed over archives, museums and libraries is related, based on the underlying common history.

In the sequence, information systems implementing such a model allow for researching the
material across institutions not by an approximation via intuitively defined finding aids, but by an
objectively verifiable, causal model, i.e., via the involved events. Data examples for demonstration
have been successfully elaborated in RDF encoding in the framework of the European funded Project
CASPAR on Digital Preservation. Surprisingly enough, this model is not infinitely complex, but rather
small compared to typical business database applications. As has been shown with the CRM Core, the
built-in abstraction layers allow for very handy but still powerful simplifications. A respective core
model for FRBROO is under development.

The model also avoids the pitfalls of oversimplifications as in some attempts to regard
performances as kinds of Expressions in the sense of FRBR. Such an approach may be convenient from
the perspective of a particular library information system implementation, but it creates serious
contradictions with underlying reality – a performance is simply an event happening in space-time and
not a persistent item - and fails completely to describe how all the things used or produced during a
performance relate to it.

Finally, the rigorous ontological interpretation of FRBR and performing arts brought to the light
a fundamental and important dimension of intellectual creative activity, which – to our knowledge –
has been overseen so far, the adding value to an existing expression by incorporating it in a work of
different form, analogous to but distinct from creative processes of derivation and continuation of an
existing work. Future work of the FRBR/CIDOC CRM Harmonisation Group will try to create a very
small core data structure from FRBROO around these fundamental relationships between intellectual
products, and seek ways to demonstrate its utility in practical large-scale applications.

[1] Patel, Manjula; Koch, Traugott; Doerr, Martin; Tsinaraki, Chrisa; Gioldasis, Nektarios; Golub, Koraljka; Tudhope,
Doug. “Semantic Interoperability in Digital Library Systems”, DELOS Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries –
deliverable 5.3.1, June 2005.

[2] Doerr, Martin. “The CIDOC CRM – An Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata”, in AI
Magazine, 2003, 4(1).

[3] Le Boeuf, Patrick (editor). Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Frbr): Hype or Cure-All?, Haworth
Press, Inc, January 2005, ISBN: 0789027984.

[4] Doerr, Martin; Hunter, Jane; Lagoze, Carl. “Towards a Core Ontology for Information Integration”, in Journal of
Digital information, April 2003, volume 4 issue 1.

[5] Sinclair, Patrick; Addis, Matthew; Choi, Freddy; Doerr, Martin; Lewis, Paul; Martinez, Kirk. “The use of CRM Core in
Multimedia Annotation”, to appear in: Proceedings of First International Workshop on Semantic Web Annotations for
Multimedia (SWAMM 2006), part of the 15th World Wide Web Conference (22-26 May 2006, Edinburgh, Scotland).

[6] Definition of the CIDOC CRM: http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr.

[7] Definition of CRM Core: http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/working_editions_cidoc.html.

[8] IFLA Study Group on the functional requirements for bibliographic records. Functional requirements for bibliographic
records : final report, volume 19 of UBCIM Publications : New Series. K. G. Saur, Munich, 1998.

[9] ISO TC 46 SC 4. ISO 21127: Information and documentation – a reference ontology for the interchange of cultural
heritage information, ISO, 2006.

[10] Holm, Liv A. “Profiling the ALM sector”, in Archives, libraries and museums convergence: 24th library systems
seminar, Paris, 12-14 April 2000 [proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the European Library Automation Group
(ELAG)], Paris, 2001, p. 62-73.

[11] Murtomaa, Eeva. “Could this be the beginning of a beautiful friendship? A comparison of the description and access to
the object of interest between the libraries and archives”, in 66th IFLA Council and General Conference, Jerusalem, Israel,
13-18 August [2000], <http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/papers/125-164e.htm>.

[12] Gibson, Hannah; Morris, Anne; Cleeve, Marigold. “Links between libraries and museums: investigating museum-
library collaboration in England and the USA”, in Libri, 2007, vol. 57, pp. 53-64, ISSN 0024-2667.

[13] Robin Thornes, Protecting Cultural Objects In The Global Information Society, The Making Of Object Id, Getty
Information Institute, 1997. http://www.object-id.com/final/index.html

Links:
IFLA: http://www.ifla.org
ICOM: http://icom.museum
Definition of the CIDOC CRM: http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr.
Definition of CRM Core: http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/working_editions_cidoc.html
Definition of FRBR: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm
DELOS NoE deliverable 5.3.1: http://delos-wp5.ukoln.ac.uk/project-outcomes/SI-in-DLs