自FRBR發布後，興起諸多圖書館目錄實踐FRBR的相關研究。由於FRBR缺乏使用者研究之驗證，且實務上難以識別FRBR實體等問題，資訊組織研究的學者開始探討FRBR滿足使用者需求之情形。有一些探索性研究基於心智模式理論，引出使用者之心智模式並與FRBR進行對照，為FRBR研究注入了許多重要發現，也影響了IFLA於 2017年發布的新興模型《圖書館參考模型》（LRM）。LRM整合FRBR、FRAD與FRSAD等FRBR家族模型的過程中，重新調整各實體之定義，同時也刪除部分實體，此舉亦改變原FRBR家族定義之屬性與關係。然而，自LRM發布以來，鮮少有使用者研究驗證LRM滿足使用者需求之情形。為補充研究缺口，本研究旨於探討LRM與使用者心智模式之異同，以檢視LRM滿足使用者需求之情況。
　　本研究以《哈利波特》相關作品及其故事內容，設計LRM作品、內容表達、載體表現、行為者與Res等實體之實例作為研究樣本，並招募10位具備《哈利波特》相關作品閱聽經驗之讀者作為研究對象，藉由卡片分類法與概念構圖法作為研究方法引出使用者之心智模式。研究過程中，受測者須分類25張代表LRM實體實例之卡片，並建立卡片之間的關係。基於施測結果，本研究加以對照LRM，以探討受測者心智模式與LRM之異同。最後，以「受測者重視的要素」與「受測者不易區分的概念」歸納本研究之重要發現。基於研究結果，本研究建議應用LRM於圖書館目錄之設計時，應擴展LRM模型，並以外部資源彌補資料缺口，亦得考量以「超作品」作為實體建構目錄。
　　本研究之貢獻，在於以使用者之心智模式驗證LRM，並將研究樣本擴展至原FRBR第二組與第三組等先前研究鮮少驗證之實體，從中發現LRM尚未能滿足使用者需求之處，進而建議改善LRM以促進圖書館目錄之導航。

Following the publication of FRBR, a substantial body of research has focused on its application within library cataloging practices. However, the absence of user-centered validation, coupled with the practical difficulties of the libraries in distinguishing FRBR entities, has prompted scholars in the field of information organization to validate the extent to which FRBR addresses users' needs. Several exploratory studies based on  mental model theory have surfaced, comparing users’ mental models with FRBR. These studies have yielded critical insights, contributing to the emergency conceptual model, the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM). LRM consolidated FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD, resulting in the redefinition and removal of some entities, as well as modifications to the attributes and relationships originally established in the FRBR family models.
    However, since the release of LRM, limited user-centered research has been conducted to assess its effectiveness in addressing user needs. This study sought to fill this research gap by examining the alignment between LRM and users' mental models, exploring both their similarities and divergences, and ultimately evaluating the degree to which LRM meets user needs.
    This study utilizes the Harry Potter related works and its fictional universe to design the instances of LRM entities: Work, Expression, Manifestation, Agent, and Res. A total of ten participants with prior knowledge of the Harry Potter related works were selected. Through the use of card sorting and concept mapping techniques, participants' mental models were elicited. Each participant was tasked with categorizing 25 cards, each representing instances of LRM entities, and identifying the relationships between them. The results were then analyzed by comparing participants' mental models with LRM to explore both similarities and differences. The study highlights two major findings: (1) key aspects that participants consider important in their perspective, and (2) concepts that participants found challenging to differentiate.
    This study recommended expanding the LRM and integrating external resources to address data deficiencies when implementing LRM in library catalog systems. Furthermore, this study proposed the inclusion of "superwork" as an entity to enhance catalog design.
    The study’s key contribution lie in its empirical validation of LRM through the analysis of users' mental models. By broadening the scope of research to include previously underexplored entities from the FRBR group 2 and group 3, this study uncovered the gaps in LRM to address user needs, and proposed the way to improve LRM to optimize the navigation in library catalog systems.

第一章	緒論	1
第一節	研究背景與動機	1
第二節	研究目的與問題	3
第三節	研究範圍與限制	3
第四節	研究重要性與預期貢獻	3
第五節	名詞解釋	4
第二章	文獻探討	7
第一節	FRBR家族模型與LRM	7
第二節	使用者心智模式	19
第三節	以使用者為導向之書目關係研究	23
第三章	研究設計與方法	33
第一節	研究方法	33
第二節	基於LRM實體設計之實例卡片	34
第三節	研究對象	38
第四節	實施流程	40
第五節	研究結果之分析方式	43
第六節	前導研究	44
第四章	研究結果與討論	49
第一節	卡片分類任務之結果與分析	49
第二節	概念構圖任務之結果與分析	69
第三節	綜合討論	107
第五章	結論與建議	111
第一節	結論	111
第二節	應用LRM之建議	112
第三節	未來研究之建議	113
參考文獻	115
附錄一、卡片內容	123
附錄二、研究參與知情同意書	127
附錄三、受測者卡片分類編碼結果	129
附錄四、受測者概念構圖編碼結果	130
附錄五、前導研究之卡片內容	131

表目次
表1	相關研究重點對照表	29
表2	相關研究之研究方法對照表	31
表3	受測者學科背景與FRBR及LRM知識背景	40
表4	受測者對於相關作品之閱聽經驗	40
表5	L1卡片分類結果	50
表6	L2卡片分類結果	51
表7	L3卡片分類結果	53
表8	L4卡片分類結果	55
表9	L5卡片分類結果	56
表10	A1卡片分類結果	57
表11	A2卡片分類結果	58
表12	A3卡片分類結果	60
表13	A4卡片分類結果	61
表14	A5卡片分類結果	62
表15	受測者卡片分類結果與LRM相似情形	64
表16	受測者卡片分類結果與LRM相似度及排名	64
表17	卡片分類之卡片集群分析結果	65
表18	卡片之間符合LRM定義之作品、內容表達與載體表現關係	71
表19	卡片之間符合LRM定義之行為者與作品、內容表達以及載體表現關係	73
表20	卡片之間符合Res與作品之關係	74
表21	受測者建立與LRM相似之作品與內容表達關係	75
表22	受測者建立與LRM相似之內容表達與載體表現關係	76
表23	受測者建立與LRM相似之作品與作品關係	77
表24	受測者建立與LRM相似之內容表達與內容表達關係	78
表25	受測者建立與LRM相似之載體表現與載體表現關係	78
表26	受測者建立與LRM相似之行為者與作品關係	79
表27	受測者建立與LRM相似之行為者與內容表達關係	80
表28	受測者建立與LRM相似之行為者與載體表現關係	80
表29	受測者建立與LRM相似之Res與作品關係	82
表30	受測者建立與LRM相異之作品與內容表達關係	84
表31	受測者建立與LRM相異之作品與內容表達關係	86
表32	受測者建立與LRM相異之內容表達與載體表現關係	88
表33	受測者建立與LRM相異之行為者與作品關係	88
表34	受測者建立與LRM相異之行為者與內容表達及載體表現之關係	90
表35	受測者建立與LRM相異之行為者與行為者關係	91
表36	受測者建立與LRM相異之Res與內容表達及載體表現關係（1）	92
表37	受測者建立與LRM相異之Res與內容表達及載體表現關係（2）	93
表38	受測者建立與LRM相異之Res與內容表達及載體表現關係（3）	93
表39	受測者建立與LRM相異之Res與行為者關係（1）	94
表40	受測者建立與LRM相異之Res與行為者關係（2）	94
表41	受測者建立與LRM相異之Res與行為者關係（3）	95
表42	受測者建立與LRM相異之Res與Res關係	96
表43	概念構圖之受測者集群結果與LRM相似度	98
表44	概念構圖之卡片集群分析結果	99
表45	研究發現對照表	108
表46	受測者心智模式與LRM之相似度排名	110

圖目次
圖1	LRM實體關係圖	11
圖2	Tillett的作品家族圖	15
圖3	Norman的使用者心智模式與設計者概念模型關係圖	20
圖4	LRM實體之實例卡片示意圖	36
圖5	25張實例卡片與LRM實體對照示意圖	37
圖6	以Miro工具進行卡片分類任務示意圖	42
圖7	以Miro工具進行概念構圖任務示意圖	42
圖8	前導研究卡片之作品、內容表達及載體表現結構	46
圖9	受測者卡片分類之卡片集群分析樹狀圖	65
圖10	作品、內容表達與載體表現之間的關係	72
圖11	作品與作品之間的關係	72
圖12	受測者建立與LRM相異之作品與內容表達關係	84
圖13	受測者建立與LRM相異之作品與載體表現關係	85
圖14	受測者建立與LRM相異之內容表達與載體表現之關係	87
圖15	受測者概念構圖之卡片集群分析樹狀圖	99

中文
張慧銖（2017）。資源描述與檢索（RDA）。在張慧銖（主編），資訊組織（頁109-138）。Airiti Press。
許如星（2015）。書目紀錄功能需求之使用者研究：使用者書目世界心智模型之初探－以《聖經》作品為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學系。 
陳亞寧（2013）。以關鍵字使用分析探討社會標記者與索引專家的文獻標引心智模式［未出版之博士論文］。國立臺灣師範大學。
陳和琴（2019a）。IFLA Library Reference Model與RDA。國家圖書館110年RDA資訊組織數位課程。https://catweb.ncl.edu.tw/sites/default/files/upload/training/02-2_IFLA-LRM%20and%20RDA.pdf
陳和琴（2019b）。RDA 概論及編目實務1-2。圖書館資訊組織進階訓練研習班。https://catweb.ncl.edu.tw/sites/default/files/upload/training/02_RDA概論與編目實務%201-2.pdf 
謝建成、呂智惠、陳光榮（2019）。不同卡片分類法效益比較之研究。圖書資訊學研究，13(2)，119-143。
 
英文
Aalberg, T. (2002). Navigating in bibliographic catalogues. In International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (p. 238-250). Springer. 
Arastoopoor, S. (2022). Users' perception of navigating bibliographic families from IFLA-LRM perspective. Library Hi Tech, 40(1), 265-280. 
Bennett, R., Lavoie, B. F., & O’Neill, E. T. (2003). The concept of a work in WorldCat: an application of FRBR. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 27(1), 45-59. 
Borgman, C. L. (1986). The user's mental model of an information retrieval system: An experiment on a prototype online catalog. International Journal of man-machine studies, 24(1), 47-64. 
Branch, F., Arias, T., Kennah, J., Phillips, R., Windleharth, T., & Lee, J. H. (2017). Representing transmedia fictional worlds through ontology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(12), 2771-2782. 
Carlyle, A. (1996). Ordering author and work records: An evaluation of collocation in online catalog displays. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(7), 538-554.
Carlyle, A. (1999). User categorisation of works: Toward improved organisation of online catalogue displays. Journal of documentation, 55(2), 184-208.
Carlyle, A. (2011). Understanding FRBR as a conceptual model. Library Resources & Technical Services, 50(4), 264-273. 
Chen, P. S. (1976). The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(1), 9-36.
Chen, Y. N., & Chen, S. J. (2004). A metadata practice of the IFLA FRBR model: A case study for the National Palace Museum in Taipei. Journal of Documentation, 60(2), 128-143. 
Conceição, S. C., Samuel, A., & Yelich Biniecki, S. M. (2017). Using concept mapping as a tool for conducting research: An analysis of three approaches. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1404753
de Fremery, W., & Buckland, M. (2023). The work in question. Library Resources & Technical Services, 67(4), 124-132. 
de Ries, K. E., Schaap, H., van Loon, A. M. M., Kral, M. M., & Meijer, P. C. (2022). A literature review of open-ended concept maps as a research instrument to study knowledge and learning. Quality & Quantity, 56, 73-107.
Fee, W. T. (2008). Do you have any ditko? comic books, MARC, FRBR and findability. Serials Review, 34(3), 175-189. 
Fonteles, P. G. F., Hirashima, T., & Hayashi, Y. (2019). The effect on new knowledge and reviewed knowledge caused by the positioning task in closed concept maps. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14, 1-14.
Freire, N., Borbinha, J., & Calado, P. (2007). Identification of FRBR works within bibliographic databases: An experiment with UNIMARC and duplicate detection techniques. In Asian Digital Libraries. Looking Back 10 Years and Forging New Frontiers: 10th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, ICADL 2007, Hanoi, Vietnam, December 10-13, 2007. Proceedings 10 (pp.267-276). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records. (2009). Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final report. https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records. (2009). Functional Requirements for Authority Data: A Conceptual Model. https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/assets/cataloguing/frad/frad_2013.pdf
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Working Group on the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR). (2010). Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) A Conceptual Model. https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/assets/classification-and-indexing/functional-requirements-for-subject-authority-data/frsad-final-report.pdf
Kumar, R., Sarukesi, K., & Uma, G. V. (2012). Assessment of understanding using concept map: a novel approach. International Journal of Computer Applications, 54(4), 42-46.
Lantz, E., Keeley, J. W., Roberts, M. C., Medina-Mora, M. E., Sharan, P., & Reed, G. M. (2019). Card sorting data collection methodology: how many participants is most efficient?. Journal of Classification, 36, 649-658.
Le Boeuf, P. (2001). FRBR and Further. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 32(4), 15-52. 
Lee, J. H., Jett, J., Cho, H., Windleharth, T., Disher, T., Kiryakos, S., & Sugimoto, S. (2018). Reconceptualizing superwork for improved access to popular cultural objects. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(1), 274-281. 
Michell, G., & Dewdney, P. (1998). Mental models theory: Applications for library and information science. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 39(4), 275-281. 
Nicoll, G. (2001). A three-tier system for assessing concept map links: a methodological study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 863-875.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Models (pp. 7-14). Hillsdale, Nj: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  
Norman, D. A. (1990). The psychopathology of everyday things. In The design of everyday things (1st Doubleday/Currency ed., pp. 1-33). New York: Doubleday. 
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools (2008 Rev. ed). Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. https://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMapshq.pdf
O’Neill, E., Cato, A., Goossens, P., Kuhagen, J., Tillett, B., Van Nuys, C., & Zumer, M. (2010). Final Report of the Working Group on Aggregates.  
O’Neill, E., Žumer, M., & Mixter, J. (2015). FRBR aggregates: their types and frequency in library collections. Library Resources & Technical Services, 59(3), 120-129.
Pauman Budanović, M., & Žumer, M. (2021a). Prototype cataloging interface based on the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM). Part 1: conceptual design. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 59(7), 619-643. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1974633 
Pauman Budanović, M., & Žumer, M. (2021b). Prototype cataloging interface based on the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM). Part 2: usability evaluation. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 59(7), 644-668. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1975183
Peponakis, M. (2012). Conceptualizations of the cataloging object: A critique on current perceptions of FRBR group 1 entities. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(5–7), 587-602.  
Pisanski, J., & Žumer, M. (2010a). Mental models of the bibliographic universe. Part 1: mental models of descriptions. Journal of Documentation, 66(5), 643-667. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011066772  
Pisanski, J., & Žumer, M. (2010b). Mental models of the bibliographic universe. Part 2: comparison task and conclusions. Journal of Documentation, 66(5), 668-680. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011066781
RDA Steering Committee. (2024). has work manifested. RDA Registry. Retrieved September 20, 2024 from https://www.rdaregistry.info/Elements/m/#P30135
RealtimeBoard Inc. dba Miro. (2024). Miro: the visual workspace for innovation. https://miro.com/index/
Rico, M., Vila-Suero, D., Botezan, I., & Gómez-Pérez, A. (2019). Evaluating the impact of semantic technologies on bibliographic systems: A user-centred and comparative approach. Journal of Web Semantics, 59, 100500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2019.03.001 
Riva, P. (2004). Defining the boundaries: FRBR, AACR and the serial. The Serials Librarian, 45(3), 15-21. 
Riva, P., & Žumer, M. (2017). The IFLA Library Reference Model, a step toward the Semantic Web. Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC 2017 - Wrocław, Poland - Libraries. Solidarity. Society. in Session 78 - Standards Committee. https://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/1763
Riva, P., Le Boeuf, P., & Žumer, M. (2017a). IFLA library reference model: A conceptual model for bibliographic information. Retrieved April 24, 2024 from https://repository.ifla.org/bitstream/123456789/40/1/ifla-lrm-august-2017_rev201712.pdf 
Riva, P., Le Boeuf, P., & Žumer, M. (2017b). Transition mappings. user tasks, entities, attributes, and relationships in FRBR, FRAD, FRSAD mapped to their equivalents in the IFLA Library Reference Model. Retrieved April 24, 2024 from https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/assets/cataloguing/frbr-lrm/transitionmappings201708.pdf
Smiraglia, R. P. (2007). Bibliographic families and superworks. In A. G. Taylor (Ed.), Understanding FRBR: what it is and How it will Affect our Retrieval Tools (pp. 73-86). West port: Libraries Unlimited.  
Smiraglia, R. P. (2012). Be careful what you wish for: FRBR, some lacunae, a review. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 360-368.  
Smiraglia, R. P. (2014). Is FRBR a domain? domain analysis applied to the literature of the FRBR family of conceptual models. Ko Knowledge Organization, 40(4), 273-284. 
Spencer, D. (2009). Card sorting: Designing usable categories. Rosenfeld Media.
Staggers, N., & Norcio, A. F. (1993). Mental models: Concepts for human-computer interaction research. International Journal of man-machine studies, 38(4), 587-605.  
Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. MIT press.
Tallerås, K., Dahl, J. H. B., & Pharo, N. (2018). User conceptualizations of derivative relationships in the bibliographic universe. Journal of Documentation, 74(4), 894-916. https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-10-2017-0139  
Taniguchi, S. (2002). A conceptual model giving primacy to expression‐level bibliographic entity in cataloging. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 363-382.   
Tillett, B. (2001). Bibliographic relationships. In Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge (pp. 19-35). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Tokita, T., Kimura, M., Miyata, Y., Yokoyama, Y., Taniguchi, S., & Ueda, S. (2012). Identifying works of Japanese classics for construction of FRBRized OPACs. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 670-687..  
Van Ballegooie, M., & Borie, J. (2014). From record-bound to boundless: FRBR, linked data, and new possibilities for serials cataloging. The Serials Librarian, 66(1-4), 76-87.
 Zhang, Y. (2008). Undergraduate students' mental models of the Web as an information retrieval system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2087-2098.  
Zhang, Y., & Salaba, A. (2009). What is next for functional requirements for bibliographic records? a delphi study. The Library Quarterly, 79(2), 233-255.  
Zhang, Y., & Salaba, A. (2012). What do users tell us about FRBR-based catalogs? Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 50(5-7), 705-723. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2012.682000  
Žumer, M. (2018). IFLA library reference model (IFLA LRM)—harmonisation of the FRBR family. KO Knowledge Organization, 45(4), 310-318.
Žumer, M., & O'Neill, E. T. (2012). Modeling aggregates in FRBR. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly,50(5-7), 456-472. 
Žumer, M., Aalberg, T., & O’Neill, E. (2019). Application of the FRBR/LRM Model to Continuing Resources. Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC 2019 - Athens, Greece - Libraries: dialogue for change in Session 208 - Serials and Other Continuing Resources. https://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/2464/