Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013232045 = product of:
  0.06174954 = sum of:
    0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013458292 = score(doc=1917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
    0.034832954 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034832954 = score(doc=1917,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2979991 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
    0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013458292 = score(doc=1917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The models in the FRBR family include ways to document names or terms for all entities defined in the models, with identification as the ultimate aim, i.e., to distinguish entities by unique appellations and to use the most reliable appellations for entities in a given context. The intention in this paper is to explore the interrelationships between these different models with regards to their treatment of names, identifiers and other appellation entities. The specialisation/generalisation structure of the appellation-related entities and the relationships and properties of these entities will be discussed. The paper also tries to clarify the potential confusion of identity itself in this context - when are we talking about an entity via its name, about the name itself, about the name citation in a document and when about a name of name? In FRBR(er), titles for group 1, names for group 2 and terms for group 3 entities are merely defined as attributes of these entities. This serves the basic requirement of associating the appellation (label) with the entity, but does not allow introducing attributes of these appellations or relationships between and among them. FRAD, completed a decade later, defined as entities name, identifier, and controlled access point. Clearly making the distinction between a bibliographic entity and its name is a significant step taken in FRAD. This permits the separate treatment of relationships between the persons, families, and corporate bodies themselves and those relationships which instead operate between their names or between the controlled access points based on those names. In FRSAD, the most recent model, two entities are defined, Thema and Nomen. Again, the bibliographic entity is distinguished from the full range of its appellations. The FRBRoo model expanded on the treatment of appellations and identifiers in CRM by modeling the identifier assignment process. In FRBRoo, F12 Name was defined but identified with the existing CRM entity E41 Appellation. Current development is concentrating on integrating FRAD and FRSAD concepts into FRBRoo, and this is putting a focus on naming and appellations, causing new classes and properties to be defined, and requiring a re-evaluation of some of the decisions previously made in FRBRoo. As naming and appellations are such a significant feature of the FRBR family of conceptual models, this work is an important step in towards the consolidation of the models into a single coherent statement of the bibliographic universe.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.517-541

0.00927127 = product of:
  0.064898886 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Definition of a conceptual reference model to provide a framework for the analysis of non-administrative metadata relating to library resources. The resulting model definition was approved by the FRBR Review Group (November 2016), and then made available to the Standing Committees of the Sections on Cataloguing and Subject Analysis & Access, as well as to the ISBD Review Group, for comment in December 2016. The final document was approved by the IFLACommittee on Standards (August 2017).

0.0052978685 = product of:
  0.03708508 = sum of:
    0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016974261 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.020110816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020110816 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The FR family of conceptual models has grown to include three separate models prepared independently over many years by different working groups: FRBR for bibliographic data, FRAD for authority data, and FRSAD for subject authority data. Even as FRAD and FRSAD were being finalized in 2009-2010, it became clear that it would be necessary to combine or consolidate the FR family into a single coherent model to clarify the understanding of the overall model and remove barriers to its adoption. The FRBR Review Group has been working towards this since 2011, constituting a Consolidation Editorial Group in 2013. The consolidation task involves not only spelling out how the three existing models fit together, but requires taking a fresh look at the models to incorporate insights gained since their initial publications. This paper, based directly on the work of the Consolidation Editorial Group, provides the first public report of the consolidated model, tentatively referred to as the FRBR-Library Reference Model (FRBR-LRM), and the guiding principles that have been applied in its development.