Supporting Multilingual Bibliographic Resource Discovery with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records

Paper Title: 
Supporting Multilingual Bibliographic Resource Discovery with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
Authors: 
Hugo Manguinhas, Nuno Freire, Jorge Machado and José Borbinha
Abstract: 
This paper reports an experiment exploring the hypothesis that an innovative application of the Functional Require-ments for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) principles can complement traditional bibliographic resource discovery systems in order to improve the user experience. A specialized service was implemented that, when given a plain list of results from a regular online catalogue, it is able to process, enrich and present that list in a more relevant way for the user. This service pre-processes the same records of the online catalogue, in order to build a semantic structure following the FRBR model. The ser-vice also explores features from web search which have been revolutionizing the way users conceptualize resource discovery, such as relevance ranking and metasearching. This work was developed in the context of the TELPlus project, and processed nearly one hundred thousand bibliographic and authority records, in multiple languages, and originating from twelve European national libraries. This paper describes the architecture of the service, and the main challenges faced, especially concerning the extraction and linking of the relevant FRBR entities from the bibliographic metadata produced by the libraries. The service was evaluated by end users, who filled a questionnaire after using the new service and a traditional online catalogue, both with the same bibliographic collection. The analysis of the results supports the hypothesis that FRBR can be feasible with the existing bibliographic data, opening the doors for its application to any existing traditional bibliographic system.
Full PDF Version: 
Submission type: 
Full Paper
Responsible editor: 
Decision/Status: 
Accept
Reviews: 

Review 1 by anonymous reviewer

The authors have done a great job of revising the article for publication. It is vastly improved in terms of readability (both the rearrangement of section and especially the proofreading job), and the addition and clarification of information (e.g., at the end of section 3). There are a few more errors and clarifications that require attention, which I will communicate to the editors so they can address them in the editorial process.

This is a revised resubmission after an accept with major revisions. The reviews of the original submissions are below.

Review 1 by anonymous reviewer

(Second) Review of paper 'Supporting Multilingual Bibliographic Resource Discovery with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records'

The paper, which is an interesting one, especially for the library sector, has been revised, following the reviewers' comments. Some issues have been improved, as for example the inclusion of the user answers to the 'open questions ' given in Appendix A. Nevertheless, two issues still remain, according to my evaluation.
The first is that the paper presentation has not been changed (I had mentioned this in the original review) as far as its first part (sections 2-4) is concerned. Too much historical and general 'existing' model description is given, while details of what has been implemented are missing. It would not be expected, for the type of journal that the paper aims at : a) to provide a general description in section 3 and only in its end to have a single paragraph for referring to the existing FRBR ontologies, b) in the end, to describe what has been done by the authors into a single sentence 'we extended the ontology… to include all attributes and relationships… we used only a subset of them...since they were not available in the source data'; what do 'all' and 'subset' refer to, and is 'data' dependency known a-priori? Giving some Table with 'a sample 'of the extensions and of what was implemented would be necessary here from a technical point of view.
The second has to do with the evaluation. Referring to the comments given in the Appendix to the 'open questions', one clearly sees the problems that really exist in the usage of systems by the users – this is shown especially in the replies to the last two questions. It is there that the authors should focus the evaluation, commenting on the issues that are still needed to target for successfully handling users' searches and satisfying them.

Review 2 by anonymous reviewer

The issues of content brought up by the reviewers have largely been resolved and improvements have been made in writing and clarity.

The article is still a rough-enough read in some places (e.g., places in the abstract, introduction, second-to-last paragraph of section 2), however, that I would recommend a quick round of editorial feedback from a native speaker, preferably with a background in cataloging.

A few small comments on the "evaluation of results" section that I hope will be helpful:
* The clarifications added and new appendix really help!
* Mention appendix A the first time the open-ended questions are referenced in para 3.
* Who the volunteers/respondents were still was not entirely clear in the first and third paras (Were library users included? Do "library professionals" include both staff and librarians?). I got the answer to the first question in the following section but think it would be useful to make this information explicit in the first para of section 6.
* The second-to-last para makes it seem as if the open-ended responses were only useful for the negative feedback that was reported, but my guess is that these responses were also used to amplify the positive conclusions? If that is the case, I would make that clear in introducing this para.

This is a revised resubmission after an accept with major revisions. The reviews of the original submission are below.

Review 1 by Kate Byrne

This is a clear and concise paper describing an innovative use of FRBR to improve the presentation of search results over a bibliographic catalogue, constructed as part of the TEL project (The European Library).

The software is designed to be integrated with a standard library OPAC (for online queries of the library catalogue by users). In the evaluation described in the paper, by 31 library staff volunteers, each user was presented with alternative interfaces: the standard OPAC results, and a version where the same results had been post-processed using the data structures available in FRBR. The FRBR-based version allows the results to be clustered by "manifestations" of a given "work" (two of the inter-related FRBR entities), then expanded with information linked to those entities (that wouldn't have been returned by the standard OPAC query) and finally re-ranked using an algorithm based on the original OPAC ranking but incorporating extra information. The reported results show a clear preference for the "semantically enriched" system amongst users, and the screen shots in the paper present it as well-structured and attractive.

The paper starts with a clear exposition of the issue being dealt with. The subject matter chosen was works by Literature Nobel Laureates, because the high volume of Manifestations of such Works show the system to good effect. It seems no bad thing that the system performs best over material that is likely to be amongst the most popularly searched for.

A succinct history of the development of FRBR is given, with helpful web links to further information and an informed commentary on the way user attitudes to catalogue searching have evolved with universal adoption of web search methods. A very clear diagram (Fig 1) explains the FRBR model, as a collection of entity classes connected by directed relations. The word "ontology" is used differently by different authors, and the usage here to refer to "a concrete specification of the model" seems a little unusual; but the meaning is clear enough.

An attractive point about the system is that it is designed to be "bolted on" to an existing library management system. A possible drawback is that the entire catalogue has to be pre-processed offline, to convert the MARC records to FRBR and build "cluster indexes". This is clearly a maintenance overhead, as the catalogue is presumably subject to frequent updates. However, if the attractions of the system are sufficient, one could see it as a way of drawing libraries in to adopting FRBR, in a practical and relatively simple way.

The evaluation process involved users answering a questionnaire after performing the same tasks using the standard OPAC and the enhanced system. It is not stated whether the tasks were pre-defined, nor what they were if so. Only 5 questions were asked about the usefulness of the semantic clustering of results, and apparently "yes", "no" or "sometimes" were the only acceptable answers. With a fairly small group of judges like this, it seems a pity that user comments were not also reported, as these will often provide considerable insight even though they are obviously not readily tabulated as formal results. The questions are quite restrictively worded, and one feels there may have been other factors involved. For example, when users are asked if the clustering was helpful for discovering additional resources (question 2) one wonders if the preponderance of "sometimes" replies is because the system does not provide enough additional resources or because it provides too many. Similarly, the question that had the most negative responses (question 4) asks whether clustering is helpful for finding the first publication of a resource - but it's not clear whether this is actually an objective for the user, or whether perhaps the answers reflect the fact that a standard OPAC will probably allow sorting of results by publication date anyway.

The description of the "FRBRizing" process (section 6) is less assured than the rest of the paper. One is left with the impression that there are a number of knotty problems here, without being clear what they are. However, there are references to other publications that possibly explain more fully.

This paper makes a useful contribution, describing what seems valuable progress in semantic enhancement of bibliographic searching. A couple of questions come to mind that are not considered in the paper. Most of the information used in the clustering and expanding processes must be available in the original MARC records (which are the source of the FRBR data), so why is the same presentation of results not possible over the unaltered catalogue records? Standard library OPACs do not present results in the way shown here, but could they not? Possibly the reason why not is because of the processing complexity, in working out the equivalent of FRBR "work" and "manifestation" entities at run-time, in order to group records together and find related items. My other query is almost the converse: could the user's query be run directly against the FRBR cluster indexes, instead of starting with the query results produced by the OPAC? If FRBR is destined for widespread adoption then presumably its data should be queried directly rather than through intermediaries. Again, I'm speculating that it may be a performance issue, as library OPACs are optimised to produce specific kinds of results very fast from often enormous catalogues; it may be that a two-stage process (fast filtering to get a result set, then clever enhancement work) is inevitable. Discussion of these issues by the authors would be much more informed than my guesses.

I noticed a number of minor errors or infelicities of style which I list here as there weren't too many:
p2, 3rd paragraph: "has been de difficulty" should be "...the difficulty".
p4, 2nd para: "Their work consisted on designing" should be "...of designing".
p4, 3rd para: "this kind of features" should be "...of feature".
p6, top of 2nd column: I suggest "logarithmically" instead of "in a logarithm way".
p6, third last para: I suggest "be transformed" instead of "be subject of transformation". Also, substitute the section number for the name, "see Section 6".
p6, second last para: "are shown in Figure 2" should be "is shown...".
p7, 1st para: "worth to notice" should be "worth noting"; "manifestations associated to each work" should be "...with each work".
p7, top of 2nd col: "authorities with more endeavors associated with it" should be "an authority..."; substitute "in preference to" for "in detriment of".
p7, next para: omit comma from "Figure 5, shows".
p11, beginning of section 6: "resulted from" should be "resulting from".
p12, first line: I suggest "deal with this" instead of "face this".
p12, 3rd para: "problem is even higher" should be "...even greater".
p13, 3rd para: the first sentence is incomplete: "The FRBRization of aggregated works and serial works was also not completely." ("not completed"? "incomplete"?).
p13, penultimate para: I suggest "not given detailed attention" instead of "not subject of a detailed...".

Review 2 by anonymous reviewer

This paper presents an architecture that uses the FRBR model in order to improve the discovery of bibliographic resources from Online Public Access Catalogues. It is based on searching by propagation of a single query, on ranking results, and refers to relevance feedback (although this is not specifially treated in the paper), which are all inspired from web search engines.
A large part of the paper (sections 2 and 3) is of introductory to the field nature, providing historical and general FRBR descriptions. On the contrary, some issues, such as that the "FRBR in RDF" ontology was extended to include the attributes and relations defined in FRBR as "class properties", are not described in the required detail.
In the next section, which describes the architecture, a service called "semantic cluster" is used, including FRBRization, clustering, expansion and reordering. Once again this is given in a descrptive, not detailed, manner. This can be due to the fact that the work has already been presented in former publications of the authors (e.g., [15]). Issues, such as: what is meant by indirect relation and which manifestations are clustered together, or how is the reduction of the weight of manifestations interpreted in practice, should be clarified.
Provision of some example could assist in illustrating the methodologies.
Moreover, section 6 which presents previous work of the authors for the FRBrization process of MARC entities, should be reduced and be moved before the experimental section, for readability reasons.
In summary, the paper is interesting, referring to the work done in the framework of one of the Europeana related projects for the library sector. However, great part of it either presents models that are already well desribed in the related literature, or duplicates former publication of the authors. The paper should, thus, be rewritten reducing such information and focusing on the extensions that give further insight in the followed methodologies.

Review 3 by Ray Larson

This is a well-written and interesting paper on using the FRBR principles to structure the results display of an OPAC, and also about the application of ranking to OPAC results. Overall, the paper is quite readable and
makes a good argument for the use of FRBR principles. My only criticisms are focused on some limitations of the literature review, and a few
minor typos or phrasing issues.

The main concern is that the literature review appears to be largely restricted to work from the late 90's and 2000's and ignores much of the the earlier work on OPACs that also dealt with some similar issues. For example, the RLG - RLIN system in the 1980's used a very similar display of
grouped records for the same works (even called their "clustered display"),
and similar displays were adopted by some early OPACS. In addition, work on ranked retrieval in OPACs dates back to the late 80's and early 90's, long before the Web, including such systems as CITE at the US National Library of Medicine, the OKAPI system at the Polytechnic of Central London, The HyperCatalog project in Sweden, and the Cheshire system at Berkeley.

As to phrasing issues: "… bibliographic data being the OCLC FRBR Work-Set Algorithm the most important reference." probably should be
"the OCLC FRBR Work-Set Algorithm being the most important reference."

Review 4 by anonymous reviewer

Overall, I found the background information and research presented in this article to be interesting and significant given the wealth of information libraries have in traditional catalogs that could be presented in a semantically richer way. The conclusion was to the point, and the section on future directions was a nice addition. Below are some suggestions that could be used to improve the piece.

Briefly addressing what new generation ILSs do and do not do, and why a library would prefer to FRBRize their own bibliographic data would be helpful to explaining the paper's significance.

The literature review gave good background information and a scan of the literature. A little more focus on techniques to FRBRize legacy data and other studies that evaluate the utility of new services built on it, if they exist, would be beneficial. Reducing the number of quotes and referring to authors would be a great improvement.

The methodology is addressed for the FRBRization of the data, but not for the user survey. Some sentences about the participant population, how they were recruited, and why their feedback is relevant (do they represent library users, or library staff?) would be desirable. From the abstract and introduction, I expected a comparison of the traditional OPAC and the new system (semantic cluster) being tested, but the survey questions included do not reflect this. Also, a stronger tie could be made between the key features of web search engines and new features introduced by the semantic cluster approach, e.g. the feedback function is mentioned a few times and does not seem to make it into the discussion of the new system.

Data analysis: This section would really benefit from more detail, such as discussion of the response scale, and more discussion of the survey results. I wondered particularly how the authors knew what the negative feedback they received on the semantic cluster was related to? Including the entire survey as an appendix would help. The figures and tables were useful throughout, but placement closer to the relevant narrative in some cases would be an improvement. The survey questions in the text could be combined with table 1, and the percentages should probably be eliminated since they are based on such small numbers.

Writing style and clarity: The writing overall is good, though there are awkward areas that could be improved with editorial feedback from a native English speaker (e.g., issues with word order and choice, especially prepositions, and sentence fragments). Care should be taken that quotations flow grammatically (see p. 3 [2]). Section 6 could be moved after section 4.

Tags: 

Comments

REVIEWER 1

Issue:
The evaluation process involved users answering a questionnaire after
performing the same tasks using the standard OPAC and the enhanced
system. It is not stated whether the tasks were pre-defined, nor what
they were if so.

Response:
No predifined tasks were given to the users.
This is now stated on the first paragraph, of section 5.

Issue:
Only 5 questions were asked about the usefulness of
the semantic clustering of results, and apparently "yes", "no" or
"sometimes" were the only acceptable answers. With a fairly small
group of judges like this, it seems a pity that user comments were
not also reported, as these will often provide considerable insight
even though they are obviously not readily tabulated as formal
results.

Response:
The open answer questions of the survey are now included in Appendix A.

Issue:
The questions are quite restrictively worded, and one feels
there may have been other factors involved. For example, when users
are asked if the clustering was helpful for discovering additional
resources (question 2) one wonders if the preponderance of
"sometimes" replies is because the system does not provide enough
additional resources or because it provides too many.

Response:
The open answer questions of the survey are now included in Appendix A.

Issue:
Similarly, the question that had the most negative responses (question 4)
asks whether clustering is helpful for finding the first publication of a
resource - but it's not clear whether this is actually an objective
for the user, or whether perhaps the answers reflect the fact that a
standard OPAC will probably allow sorting of results by publication
date anyway.

Response:
Finding the first publication of a work was considered one of the
possible use cases for FRBR clustering of search results, so it
was included in the survey.
We agree with the comment, but this was a flaw in the design of
the survey, and we could not find a good solution for addressing
it in the text of the paper.

Issue:
The description of the "FRBRizing" process (section 6) is less
assured than the rest of the paper. One is left with the impression
that there are a number of knotty problems here, without being clear
what they are. However, there are references to other publications
that possibly explain more fully.

Response:
The work described in Section 4 offers an overview of the FRBRization
process without going in to much detail, since it is not the main focus
of the paper. For a more detailed explanation of the process we refer
to previous publications.

Issue:
Most of the information used in the clustering and expanding
processes must be available in the original MARC records (which are
the source of the FRBR data), so why is the same presentation of
results not possible over the unaltered catalogue records? Standard
library OPACs do not present results in the way shown here, but could
they not? Possibly the reason why not is because of the processing
complexity, in working out the equivalent of FRBR "work" and
"manifestation" entities at run-time, in order to group records
together and find related items.

Response:
The comment provided by the reviewer already answers the question.
This is now stated on the following sentence:
"This is a very time consuming process due to the amount of work that
needs to be done to normalize, extract and aggregate all the FRBR
entities and this is the main reason why this is done in a prior
stage and not at runtime. Also, this way, pre-built clusters can
be further improved both by new clustering algorithms and also by
user feedback."

Issue:
My other query is almost the converse: could the user's query be run
directly against the FRBR cluster indexes, instead of starting with
the query results produced by the OPAC? If FRBR is destined for
widespread adoption then presumably its data should be queried directly
rather than through intermediaries. Again, I'm speculating that it
may be a performance issue, as library OPACs are optimised to produce
specific kinds of results very fast from often enormous catalogues;
it may be that a two-stage process (fast filtering to get a result
set, then clever enhancement work) is inevitable. Discussion of these
issues by the authors would be much more informed than my guesses.

Response:
Yes, sure that can be done. However, it is important to notice that the
purpose of this experimental work is to complement the existing ranking
algorithmns used in OPACs with additional insight provided by a semantically
richer organization of the data.
This is now stated on the following sentence:
"It is important to notice that this approach assumes that the OPAC already
applies standard ranking algorithms since the purpose of this work is to
complement and not replace these algorithms."

Issue:
I noticed a number of minor errors or infelicities of style which I
list here as there weren't too many:
p2, 3rd paragraph: "has been de difficulty" should be "...the
difficulty".
p4, 2nd para: "Their work consisted on designing" should be "...of
designing".
p4, 3rd para: "this kind of features" should be "...of feature".
p6, top of 2nd column: I suggest "logarithmically" instead of "in a
logarithm way".
p6, third last para: I suggest "be transformed" instead of "be
subject of transformation". Also, substitute the section number for
the name, "see Section 6".
p6, second last para: "are shown in Figure 2" should be "is
shown...".
p7, 1st para: "worth to notice" should be "worth noting";
"manifestations associated to each work" should be "...with each
work".
p7, top of 2nd col: "authorities with more endeavors associated with
it" should be "an authority..."; substitute "in preference to" for
"in detriment of".
p7, next para: omit comma from "Figure 5, shows".
p11, beginning of section 6: "resulted from" should be "resulting
from".
p12, first line: I suggest "deal with this" instead of "face this".
p12, 3rd para: "problem is even higher" should be "...even greater".
p13, 3rd para: the first sentence is incomplete: "The FRBRization of
aggregated works and serial works was also not completely." ("not
completed"? "incomplete"?).
p13, penultimate para: I suggest "not given detailed attention"
instead of "not subject of a detailed...".

Response:
All corrections were resolved.

REVIEWER 2

Issue:
On the contrary, some issues, such as that the "FRBR in RDF" ontology
was extended to include the attributes and relations defined in FRBR
as "class properties", are not described in the required detail.

Response:
Section 3 was revised and extended to include the attributes and
relations defined in FRBR.

Issue:
what is meant by indirect relation and which
manifestations are clustered together, or how is the reduction of the
weight of manifestations interpreted in practice, should be
clarified.

Response:
The function used to reduce the weight of manifestations was
identified after some testing of the ranking results delivered
by the OPAC. Although it provides satisfactory results a better
evaluation of this function would be required.
This is now stated on the following sentence:
"The logarithm of base 10 was found adequate after analyzing the
ranking results delivered by OPAC. Although it provides satisfactory
results, a better evaluation of this function would be required."

Issue:
Moreover, section 6 which presents previous work of the authors for
the FRBrization process of MARC entities, should be reduced and be
moved before the experimental section, for readability reasons.

Response:
Section 6 was moved and reduced as suggested by the reviewer.

REVIEWER 3

Issue:
The main concern is that the literature review appears to be largely
restricted to work from the late 90's and 2000's and ignores much of
the the earlier work on OPACs that also dealt with some similar
issues. For example, the RLG - RLIN system in the 1980's used a very
similar display of
grouped records for the same works (even called their "clustered
display"),
and similar displays were adopted by some early OPACS. In addition,
work on ranked retrieval in OPACs dates back to the late 80's and
early 90's, long before the Web, including such systems as CITE at
the US National Library of Medicine, the OKAPI system at the
Polytechnic of Central London, The HyperCatalog project in Sweden,
and the Cheshire system at Berkeley.

Response:
Section 2 was revised and extended to accomodate the reviewer's comments.

Issue:
As to phrasing issues: "… bibliographic data being the OCLC FRBR
Work-Set Algorithm the most important reference." probably should be
"the OCLC FRBR Work-Set Algorithm being the most important
reference."

Response:
All phrasing issues were resolved.

REVIEWER 4

Issue:
Briefly addressing what new generation ILSs do and do not do, and why
a library would prefer to FRBRize their own bibliographic data would
be helpful to explaining the paper's significance.

Response:
The following paragraph was added to section 1:
"Considering the millions of bibliographic records in use all over the
world, which were created at a very high cost, makes the problem of
FRBRization a very relevant one. Event though some library management
systems are being designed from the start according to FRBR, they
address the conversion of legacy data as a manual cataloguing process."

Issue:
The literature review gave good background information and a scan of
the literature. A little more focus on techniques to FRBRize legacy
data and other studies that evaluate the utility of new services
built on it, if they exist, would be beneficial.

Response:
We recognize that more relevant work on the FRBRization of legacy data
exists. However, most of it focus on the purpose of transforming a
traditional bibliographic database, usually one according to the MARC
paradigm, in a new one following the new proposed FRBR paradigm and
intended to replace the original one.
Since our purpose is really not so ambitious, but simply to investigate
how to apply the FRBR principles to traditional data for the purpose of
improving the resource discovery experience, we conscientiously resumed
our related work to only the most relevant generic FRBR references and
then to those ones that inspired us for our specific challenge
(otherwise we’d risk to extend this section too much, risking to distract
the reader from our focus).

Issue:
Reducing the number of quotes and referring to authors would be a great
improvement.

Response:
The number of quotes in Section 2 was reduce according to the reviewer's comment.
Only a few quotes were maintained since they accurately represent the message the
authors want to trasmit to the reader.

Issue:
The methodology is addressed for the FRBRization of the data, but not
for the user survey. Some sentences about the participant population,
how they were recruited, and why their feedback is relevant (do they
represent library users, or library staff?) would be desirable.

Response:
The respondent profiling question of the survey is now included in the section.

Issue:
From the abstract and introduction, I expected a comparison of the
traditional OPAC and the new system (semantic cluster) being tested,
but the survey questions included do not reflect this.

Response:
The questionnaire's instructions sent to the users stated that the
survey should answered after comparing the two services. We tried
to make this more clear in the text.

Issue:
Also, a stronger tie could be made between the key features of web search
engines and new features introduced by the semantic cluster approach,
e.g. the feedback function is mentioned a few times and does not seem
to make it into the discussion of the new system.

Response:
Section 4 was revised to accomodate the reviewer's comments, also a new
paragraph was added explaining how the relevance feedback was developed.
"The relevance feedback technique is provided in both OPACs, which consists
on finding the most re-levant terms returned by the engine using them to
improve the search task. In the case of the FRBR OPAC this function was
adapted to re-rank clusters using score functions that take advantage of
the cluster index in the semantic cluster. The main idea is to consider
clusters as documents in score functions."

Issue:
Data analysis: This section would really benefit from more detail,
such as discussion of the response scale, and more discussion of the
survey results. I wondered particularly how the authors knew what
the negative feedback they received on the semantic cluster was
related to? Including the entire survey as an appendix would help.

Response:
The open answer questions of the survey are now included in Appendix A.
They were the source for our analysis of the negative feedback.

Issue:
The figures and tables were useful throughout, but placement closer
to the relevant narrative in some cases would be an improvement.

Response:
Some figures and tables were rearranged due to modifications in text.
We agree with the comment but in some cases it is difficult to arrange
them so that they are close to the narrative. We hope that with the new
placement of figures, some of these issues may be solved.

Issue:
The survey questions in the text could be combined with table 1, and the
percentages should probably be eliminated since they are based on
such small numbers.

Response:
The questions text and table were combined and the percentages were removed.

Issue:
Writing style and clarity: The writing overall is good, though there
are awkward areas that could be improved with editorial feedback from
a native English speaker (e.g., issues with word order and choice,
especially prepositions, and sentence fragments). Care should be
taken that quotations flow grammatically (see p. 3 [2]).

Response:
All writting issues were resolved.

Issue:
Section 6 could be moved after section 4.

Response:
Section 6 was moved.

REVIEWER 1
(Second) Review of paper 'Supporting Multilingual Bibliographic
Resource Discovery with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic
Records'

The paper, which is an interesting one, especially for the library
sector, has been revised, following the reviewers' comments. Some
issues have been improved, as for example the inclusion of the user
answers to the 'open questions ' given in Appendix A. Nevertheless,
two issues still remain, according to my evaluation.
The first is that the paper presentation has not been changed (I had
mentioned this in the original review) as far as its first part
(sections 2-4) is concerned. Too much historical and general
'existing' model description is given, while details of what has been
implemented are missing. It would not be expected, for the type of
journal that the paper aims at : a) to provide a general description
in section 3 and only in its end to have a single paragraph for
referring to the existing FRBR ontologies, b) in the end, to
describe what has been done by the authors into a single sentence 'we
extended the ontology… to include all attributes and relationships… we
used only a subset of them...since they were not available in the
source data'; what do 'all' and 'subset' refer to, and is 'data'
dependency known a-priori? Giving some Table with 'a sample 'of the
extensions and of what was implemented would be necessary here from
a technical point of view.

------------------------------------------------------------
Reply from authors: Following this interesting recommendation, we added a
table with the fields used in this proccess and the statistical frequences
of each of these fields. This really might be useffull for a more technical reader...

------------------------------------------------------------

The second has to do with the evaluation. Referring to the comments
given in the Appendix to the 'open questions', one clearly sees the
problems that really exist in the usage of systems by the users –
this is shown especially in the replies to the last two questions. It
is there that the authors should focus the evaluation, commenting on
the issues that are still needed to target for successfully handling
users' searches and satisfying them.

------------------------------------------------------------
Reply from authors: This is a relevant comment, indeed! In order to
make it more clear, two new paragraphs were added near the end of
section 6, focusing on the aspects that were most often mentioned
in the answers (2nd and 3rd paragraphs counting from the end of
the section.).

------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEWER 2
The issues of content brought up by the reviewers have largely been
resolved and improvements have been made in writing and clarity.

The article is still a rough-enough read in some places (e.g., places
in the abstract, introduction, second-to-last paragraph of section 2),
however, that I would recommend a quick round of editorial feedback
from a native speaker, preferably with a background in cataloging.

---------------------------------------------------------
Reply from authors: We acknolwdeged this comment and took it very seriously!
VERY IMPORTANT: As a consequence, we submited the overal text to a professional
English proofreading service, which did a fantastic work for us. The actual
version, now resubmited, therefore also comprises the results of that
extended proofreading!!!

---------------------------------------------------------

A few small comments on the "evaluation of results" section that I
hope will be helpful:
* The clarifications added and new appendix really help!
* Mention appendix A the first time the open-ended questions are
referenced in para 3.

---------------------------------------------------------
Reply from authors: We acknolwdeged this and added the reference
to Appendix A in paragraph 3.

---------------------------------------------------------

* Who the volunteers/respondents were still was not entirely clear in
the first and third paras (Were library users included? Do "library
professionals" include both staff and librarians?). I got the answer
to the first question in the following section but think it would be
useful to make this information explicit in the first para of section
6.

----------------------------------------------------
Reply from authors: This is relevant, indded. Unfortunatly, we cannot
exactly say who the respondents were, nominally, as the evaluation
was anonymous. Invitations were sent to the libraries that provided
the date, and to relevant mailing lists subscribed bylibrary users and librarians.
Anyway, we restructured the first paragraph of this section in order
to explain all this in more detail.We believ eit is now clear.

--------------------------------------------

* The second-to-last para makes it seem as if the open-ended
responses were only useful for the negative feedback that was
reported, but my guess is that these responses were also used to
amplify the positive conclusions? If that is the case, I would make
that clear in introducing this para.

----------------------------------------------------
Reply from authors: Yes, indeed. The paragraph text also was therefore
revised accordingly!

----------------------------------------------------