Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010597337 = product of:
  0.021194674 = sum of:
    0.021194674 = product of:
      0.04238935 = sum of:
        0.04238935 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04238935 = score(doc=136,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.010080709 = product of:
  0.020161418 = sum of:
    0.020161418 = product of:
      0.040322836 = sum of:
        0.040322836 = weight(_text_:data in 1993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040322836 = score(doc=1993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 1993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.

0.009977316 = product of:
  0.019954631 = sum of:
    0.019954631 = product of:
      0.039909262 = sum of:
        0.039909262 = weight(_text_:data in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039909262 = score(doc=2094,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.24204408 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.005760405 = product of:
  0.01152081 = sum of:
    0.01152081 = product of:
      0.02304162 = sum of:
        0.02304162 = weight(_text_:data in 1918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02304162 = score(doc=1918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 1918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.