Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Riva, P."
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Riva, P.: Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2004) 0.02 
    0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic relationships have taken on even greater importance in the context of ongoing efforts to integrate concepts from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) into cataloging codes and database structures. In MARC 21, the linking entry fields are a major mechanism for expressing relationships between bibliographic records. Taxonomies of bibliographic relationships have been proposed by Tillett, with an extension by Smiraglia, and in FRBR itself. The present exercise is to provide a detailed bidirectional mapping of the MARC 21 linking fields to these two schemes. The correspondence of the Tillett taxonomic divisions to the MARC categorization of the linking fields as chronological, horizontal, or vertical is examined as well. Application of the findings to MARC format development and system functionality is discussed.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  2. Cross, E.; Andrews, S.; Grover, T.; Oliver, C.; Riva, P.: In the company of my peers : implementation of RDA in Canada (2014) 0.00 
    0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 1993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=1993,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1993, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article describes the progress made toward implementing Resource Description and Access (RDA) in libraries across Canada, as of Fall 2013. Differences in the training experiences in the English-speaking cataloging communities and French-speaking cataloging communities are discussed. Preliminary results of a survey of implementation in English-Canadian libraries are included as well as a summary of the support provided for French-Canadian libraries. Data analysis includes an examination of the rate of adoption in Canada by region and by sector. Challenges in RDA training delivery in a Canadian context are identified, as well as opportunities for improvement and expansion of RDA training in the future.
    Footnote
    Contribution in a special issue "RDA around the world"
    Type
    a
  3. Doerr, M.; Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: FRBR entities : identity and identification (2012) 0.00 
    0.0024392908 = product of:
  0.0048785815 = sum of:
    0.0048785815 = product of:
      0.009757163 = sum of:
        0.009757163 = weight(_text_:a in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009757163 = score(doc=1917,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18373153 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
    Type
    a
  4. Arsenault, C.; Paradis, D.; Riva, P.: Translating RDA into French (2014) 0.00 
    0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 1990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=1990,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1990, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1990)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article reports on a joint translation project (France and Canada) of the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard into French. We describe how the translation committee worked, explain the methodology, and present the measures taken to ensure that all contributing parties be satisfied with the end result. The article discusses problems that arose when dealing with translating specific instructions and examples that needed to be adapted (or changed) to the French context. Other sections report on technical and managerial challenges encountered. We conclude with "lessons learned" that will hopefully help others embarking on such a project.
    Footnote
    Contribution in a special issue "RDA around the world"
    Type
    a
  5. Riva, P.; Oliver, C.: Evaluation of RDA as an implementation of FRBR and FRAD (2012) 0.00 
    0.0017899501 = product of:
  0.0035799001 = sum of:
    0.0035799001 = product of:
      0.0071598003 = sum of:
        0.0071598003 = weight(_text_:a in 1918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071598003 = score(doc=1918,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 1918, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    RDA, Resource Description and Access, is based on the foundation of the original entity-relationship statements of the conceptual models FRBR and FRAD. RDA not only uses the vocabulary of entities, attributes and relationships, as well as the user tasks, described in the models, these concepts also form an integral feature of its structure at both the macro level (the organisation of the sections and chapters of RDA reflects the models) and at a more detailed level within chapters. This paper reviews the degree of alignment of RDA with FRBR and FRAD, covering the areas of user tasks, entities, attributes, and relationships, and discusses the divergences of greater or lesser significance which exist. The FRBR user tasks are almost identical to the corresponding RDA tasks, but in RDA the wording and naming of tasks corresponding to the FRAD user tasks is reoriented towards the point of view of the end user. RDA adopts the bibliographic entities, but does not treat the FRAD entities name, identifier, or controlled access point as entities in their own right, even though the essence of the FRAD model of authority control is integrated into RDA. RDA's data elements can generally be traced back to attributes defined in either FRBR or FRAD, although at times at a greater level of granularity. The FRBR primary relationships are all included in RDA, but a direct link between work and manifestation is also defined in RDA with the work manifested relationship. RDA takes steps towards the harmonisation of the separate models, some obvious, such as adding the entity family to group 2 and using the FRAD definition of the entities person and corporate body, others less so, for instance in harmonising the different treatment of relationships among group 1 entities in the organisation of the relationship designators in appendix J. The ways in which RDA implements both FRBR and FRAD into a single content standard, as well as the ways in which RDA diverges from the models, may provide valuable insights for the consolidation of the FRBR family of conceptual models.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
    Type
    a

Authors

Years