Search (55 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Zumer, M."
  • × language_ss:"e"
  1. Zumer, M.; Clavel, G.: EDLproject : one more step towards the European digtial library (2007) 0.00 
    0.0019646438 = product of:
  0.021611081 = sum of:
    0.021611081 = product of:
      0.043222163 = sum of:
        0.043222163 = weight(_text_:22 in 3184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043222163 = score(doc=3184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Content
    Vortrag anläasslich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  2. Brito, M. de; Mustafa El Hadi, W.; Zumer, M.; Bastos Vieira, S.: Indexing with images : the imagetic conceptual methodology (2016) 0.00 
    0.0016980345 = product of:
  0.009339189 = sum of:
    0.005411029 = weight(_text_:a in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005411029 = score(doc=4919,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
    0.00392816 = weight(_text_:s in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00392816 = score(doc=4919,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1359047 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Pages
    S.265-274
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
    Type
    a
  3. Zumer, M.; Riesthuis, G.J.A.: Consequences of implementing FRBR : are we ready to open pandora's box? (2002) 0.00 
    0.0015837002 = product of:
  0.008710351 = sum of:
    0.0066271294 = weight(_text_:a in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066271294 = score(doc=637,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    The study Functional Requirements for Bibliograpbic Records (FRBR) was commissioned by IFLA and published in 1998. It defines the core functions of a catalogue (and bibliographic records) as a gateway to information. For that purpose an abstract entity-relationship model of a catalogue is proposed. The FRBR model is revolutionary. The (computer) catalogue is not seen as a sequence of bibliographic records and a replica of the traditional card catalogue, but rather as a network of connected entities, enabling the user to perform seamlessly all the necessary functions. So far there has been some theoretical discussion of the model and some limited experiments, but there is a lack of research in how to implement this theoretical model in practice, in new-generation catalogues. In this paper some reactions to the model are analysed. The main focus is an consequences of the model for the OPAC interface design, particularly the searching functionality and display of results.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 29(2002) no.2, S.78-86
    Type
    a
  4. Zumer, M.; O'Neill, E.T.: Modeling aggregates in FRBR (2012) 0.00 
    0.0015837002 = product of:
  0.008710351 = sum of:
    0.0066271294 = weight(_text_:a in 1913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066271294 = score(doc=1913,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1913, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1913)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1913,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1913, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1913)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    In the bibliographic environment, the term aggregate is used to describe a bibliographic entity formed by combining distinct bibliographic units together. Aggregates are a large and growing class of information resources-up to twenty percent of the bibliographic records in OCLC's WorldCat may represent aggregates. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report only briefly references aggregates. Difficulties and inconsistencies in the application of the FRBR model to aggregates have been identified as a significant impediment to FRBR implementation. To address the issue, the FRBR Review Group established a Working Group on Aggregates which completed its charge and submitted its final report in 2011. The Working Group proposed that an aggregate be defined as a "manifestation embodying multiple distinct expressions". This paper examines the proposed definition and explores how aggregates can be modeled.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.456-472
    Type
    a
  5. Budanovic, M.P.; Zumer, M.: ¬The catalogers' thought process : a comparison of formal and informal context (2018) 0.00 
    0.0015532422 = product of:
  0.008542832 = sum of:
    0.006112407 = weight(_text_:a in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006112407 = score(doc=5180,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 5180, 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=5180)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=5180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    The aim of this article is to analyze how catalogers describe publications without cataloging tools in comparison with the current cataloging process. A total of 46 catalogers took part in the first study, a free description of monographic publications, while 30 catalogers performed original cataloging in their actual environment. A combination of observations and think-aloud protocols was used for data gathering in both studies. The focus was on Slovenian catalogers from different types and sizes of libraries. Results revealed both differences and similarities between catalogers' mental models in the respective studies.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.5/6, S.507-529
    Type
    a
  6. Zumer, M.; Zeng, L.: Comparison and evaluation of OPAC end-user interfaces (1994) 0.00 
    0.0014888468 = product of:
  0.008188657 = sum of:
    0.005411029 = weight(_text_:a in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005411029 = score(doc=3568,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=3568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Compares and evaluates the functional capabilities and interface characteristics of OPACs from the user oriented perspective, using a systematic framework. OPACs of OhioLINK and its 16 member libraries are the object of the investigation. The interfaces used 6 system software but showed a variety of features in access to OPACs, operational control, access points, search formulation control, and user assistance. Interface design alternatives are identified and qualitatively analyzed
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.67-98
    Type
    a
  7. Harej, V.; Zumer, M.: Analysis of FRBR user tasks (2013) 0.00 
    0.0014888468 = product of:
  0.008188657 = sum of:
    0.005411029 = weight(_text_:a in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005411029 = score(doc=1955,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=1955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD models propose user tasks as a way to address and categorize functions that a catalog should support. The user tasks are not harmonized among these models, but to do that, they should first be fully understood and analyzed, especially "select" and "identify." We decided to look at the FRBR user tasks from the perspective of interactive information retrieval (IIR). Several IIR models were reviewed and Ellis' and Belkin's models were chosen for further analysis and interpretation of FRBR "select" and "identify" tasks.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.7, S.741-759
    Type
    a
  8. Zumer, M.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬The new FRBR-LRM model : some accents (2016) 0.00 
    0.0014888468 = product of:
  0.008188657 = sum of:
    0.005411029 = weight(_text_:a in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005411029 = score(doc=4940,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Pages
    S.444-450
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei
    Type
    a
  9. Le Boeuf, P.; Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: FRBR - Library Reference Model : draft for World-Wide Review (2016) 0.00 
    0.0014882411 = product of:
  0.008185326 = sum of:
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=2881,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.00294612 = weight(_text_:s in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00294612 = score(doc=2881,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    The FRBR Review Group worked actively towards a consolidated model starting in 2010, in a series of working meetings held in conjunction with IFLA conferences and at an additional mid-year meeting in April 2012 during which the user task consolidation was first drafted. In 2013 in Singapore, the FRBR Review Group constituted a Consolidation Editorial Group (CEG) to focus on the detailed reassessment of attribute s and relationships, and the drafting of this model document. The CEG (at times with other FRBR Review Group members or invited experts) held five multi-day meetings, as well as discussing progress in detail with the FRBR Review Group as a whole during a working meeting in 2014 in Lyon and another in 2015 in Cape Town.
    Pages
    71 S
  10. Pisanski, J.; Zumer, M.: Mental models of the bibliographic universe : part 2: comparison task and conclusions (2010) 0.00 
    0.0014382693 = product of:
  0.007910481 = sum of:
    0.0061744633 = weight(_text_:a in 4146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061744633 = score(doc=4146,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 4146, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4146)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 4146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=4146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4146)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The paper aims to provide some insight into mental models of the bibliographic universe and how they compare with functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) as a conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. Design/methodology/approach - To get a more complete picture of the mental models, different elicitation techniques were used. The three tasks of the paper were: card-sorting, concept mapping and comparison task. The paper deals with comparison task, which consisted of interviews and rankings, and provides a discussion of the results of the paper as a whole. Findings - Results of the ranking part of the comparison task confirm the findings of concept mapping task. In both cases, while there are individual differences between mental models, on average they gravitate towards FRBR. Research limitations/implications - This is a small study and it provides only a glimpse of the implications of using FRBR as a conceptual basis for cataloguing. More FRBR-related user studies are needed, including similar studies on different groups of individuals and different types of materials, as well as practical studies of user needs and user interfaces. Practical implications - The results of this study are the first user-tested indication of the validity of FRBR as a conceptual basis for the future of cataloguing. Originality/value - This is the first published paper of mental models of the bibliographic universe and uses a unique combination of mental model elicitation techniques.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 66(2010) no.5, S.668-680
    Type
    a
  11. Riesthuis, G.J.A.; Zumer, M.: ¬The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and knowledge organization (2003) 0.00 
    0.0014359142 = product of:
  0.007897528 = sum of:
    0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 2699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005467103 = score(doc=2699,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2699, 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=2699)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 2699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=2699,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 2699, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2699)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR, 1998), the study commissioned by IFLA, brings revolutionary changes in the way we see modern computer catalogues. The catalogue is not seen as a sequence of bibliographic records and a copy of a card catalogue, but as an interconnected network of related information. Implications of the new model for the future development of catalogues are discussed. Special attention is given to access points and relationships between entities and the changes those will bring into both the formal and subject cataloguing, and authority files.
    Pages
    S.165-172
    Type
    a
  12. Pisanski, J.; Zumer, M.: How do non-librarians see the bibliographic universe? (2008) 0.00 
    0.0014222699 = product of:
  0.007822484 = sum of:
    0.0057392623 = weight(_text_:a in 2501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0057392623 = score(doc=2501,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2501, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2501)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 2501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=2501,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2501, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2501)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Content
    Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is a relatively new conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. While it is recognized among library experts, there is a considerable lack of user studies. A pilot study, consisting of three different tasks, was conducted to test the instruments for acquiring mental models of the bibliographic universe. Results show that users do not have a consistent mental model of the bibliographic universe and that various techniques used can be useful for acquiring individuals' mental models of the bibliographic universe. Of the three tasks, the one asking people to rank pairs of similar item according to substitutability revealed results that were closest to FRBR, while card sorting and concept mapping exercises failed to provide a single alternative model.
    Pages
    S.131-136
    Type
    a
  13. Mercun, T.; Zumer, M.; Aalberg, T.: Presenting bibliographic families : Designing an FRBR-based prototype using information visualization (2016) 0.00 
    0.0013806598 = product of:
  0.0075936285 = sum of:
    0.0058576106 = weight(_text_:a in 2879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058576106 = score(doc=2879,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 2879, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2879)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=2879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2879)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Despite the importance of bibliographic information systems for discovering and exploring library resources, some of the core functionality that should be provided to support users in their information seeking process is still missing. Investigating these issues, the purpose of this paper is to design a solution that would fulfil the missing objectives. Design/methodology/approach - Building on the concepts of a work family, functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) and information visualization, the paper proposes a model and user interface design that could support a more efficient and user-friendly presentation and navigation in bibliographic information systems. Findings - The proposed design brings together all versions of a work, related works, and other works by and about the author and shows how the model was implemented into a FrbrVis prototype system using hierarchical visualization layout. Research limitations/implications - Although issues related to discovery and exploration apply to various material types, the research first focused on works of fiction and was also limited by the selected sample of records. Practical implications - The model for presenting and interacting with FRBR-based data can serve as a good starting point for future developments and implementations. Originality/value - With FRBR concepts being gradually integrated into cataloguing rules, formats, and various bibliographic services, one of the important questions that has not really been investigated and studied is how the new type of data would be presented to users in a way that would exploit the true potential of the changes.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.3, S.490-526
    Type
    a
  14. Takhirov, N.; Aalberg, T.; Duchateau, F.; Zumer, M.: FRBR-ML: a FRBR-based framework for semantic interoperability (2012) 0.00 
    0.0013524598 = product of:
  0.0074385284 = sum of:
    0.006049714 = weight(_text_:a in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006049714 = score(doc=134,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Metadata related to cultural items such as literature, music and movies is a valuable resource that is currently exploited in many applications and services based on semantic web technologies. A vast amount of such information has been created by memory institutions in the last decades using different standard or ad hoc schemas, and a main challenge is to make this legacy data accessible as reusable semantic data. On one hand, this is a syntactic problem that can be solved by transforming to formats that are compatible with the tools and services used for semantic aware services. On the other hand, this is a semantic problem. Simply transforming from one format to another does not automatically enable semantic interoperability and legacy data often needs to be reinterpreted as well as transformed. The conceptual model in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, initially developed as a conceptual framework for library standards and systems, is a major step towards a shared semantic model of the products of artistic and intellectual endeavor of mankind. The model is generally accepted as sufficiently generic to serve as a conceptual framework for a broad range of cultural heritage metadata. Unfortunately, the existing large body of legacy data makes a transition to this model difficult. For instance, most bibliographic data is still only available in various MARC-based formats which is hard to render into reusable and meaningful semantic data. Making legacy bibliographic data accessible as semantic data is a complex problem that includes interpreting and transforming the information. In this article, we present our work on transforming and enhancing legacy bibliographic information into a representation where the structure and semantics of the FRBR model is explicit.
    Source
    Semantic Web journal. 3(2012) no.1, S.23-43
    Type
    a
  15. Doerr, M.; Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: FRBR entities : identity and identification (2012) 0.00 
    0.0012765076 = product of:
  0.0070207915 = sum of:
    0.005631977 = weight(_text_:a in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005631977 = score(doc=1917,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = 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)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=1917,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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"
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.517-541
    Type
    a
  16. Vilar, P.; Zumer, M.: Comparison and evaluation of the user interfaces of e-journals (2005) 0.00 
    0.0012567173 = product of:
  0.0069119446 = sum of:
    0.0039050733 = weight(_text_:a in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039050733 = score(doc=4399,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
    0.003006871 = weight(_text_:s in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003006871 = score(doc=4399,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Aims to present a comparison and evaluation of four user interfaces of web-based e-journals (Science Direct, ProQuest Direct, EBSCO Host and Emerald). Design/methodology/approach - The systems were assessed in an expert study according to accepted guidelines regarding user friendliness and functionality. User friendliness features studied were: language(s) and type(s) of interface; navigation options; personalization; and screen features. Functions inspected were: database selection; query formulation and reformulation; results manipulation; and help. Findings - Many similarities were found, but some differences among the systems were also discovered and analysed in detail. The greatest differences were found in the area of query formulation, and between the interface languages and types. Research limitations/implications - The user interfaces of four full-text IR systems offering e-journals which are accessible at the University of Ljubljana are surveyed. Practical implications - The interfaces are surveyed and assessed in order to discover their characteristics, advantages, and potential downsides and/or mistakes which may hinder use by an average user. Originality/value - The study serves as a basis for a subsequent user study of the information behaviour of the users of these systems.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.2, S.203-227
    Type
    a
  17. Pisanski, J.; Zumer, M.: Mental models of the bibliographic universe : part 1: mental models of descriptions (2010) 0.00 
    0.0012548991 = product of:
  0.0069019445 = sum of:
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 4145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=4145,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4145, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4145)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 4145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=4145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4145, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4145)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The paper aims to present the results of the first two tasks of a user study looking into mental models of the bibliographic universe and especially their comparison to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) conceptual model, which has not yet been user tested. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employes a combination of techniques for eliciting mental models and consisted of three tasks, two of which, card sorting and concept mapping, are presented herein. Its participants were 30 individuals residing in the general area of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Findings - Cumulative results of concept mapping show a strong resemblance to FRBR. Card sorts did not produce conclusive results. In both tasks, participants paid special attention to the original expression, indicating that a special place for it should be considered. Research limitations/implications - The study was performed using a relatively small sample of participants living in a geographically limited space using relatively straight-forward examples. Practical implications - Some solid evidence is provided for adoption of FRBR as the conceptual basis for cataloguing. Originality/value - This is the first widely published user study of FRBR, applying novel methodological approaches in the field of Library and Information Science.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 66(2010) no.5, S.643-667
    Type
    a
  18. Pisanski, J.; Zumer, M.: User verification of the FRBR conceptual model (2012) 0.00 
    0.001185225 = product of:
  0.006518737 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=395,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 395, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=395)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 395, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=395)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to build on of a previous study of mental models of the bibliographic universe, which found that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) conceptual model is intuitive. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 120 participants were presented with a list of bibliographic entities and six graphs each. They were asked to choose the graph they thought best represented the relationships between entities described. Findings - The graph based on the FRBR model was chosen by more than half of the participants and none of the alternatives stood out. This gives further indication that FRBR is an appropriate model of the bibliographic universe from users' standpoint. Research limitations/implications - The study only looked at the textual part of the bibliographic universe. Further research is needed for other types of materials. Practical implications - This research suggests that there should be a more positive attitude towards implementation of FRBR-based catalogues. Originality/value - This is one of only a handful of user studies relating to FRBR, which looks to be the backbone of catalogues for years to come. As such, the results should be of interest to everybody involved with catalogues, from cataloguers to the end-users.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 68(2012) no.4, S.582-592
    Type
    a
  19. Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: Introducing the FRBR library reference model (2015) 0.00 
    0.001151181 = product of:
  0.006331495 = sum of:
    0.0036259806 = product of:
      0.007251961 = sum of:
        0.007251961 = weight(_text_:h in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007251961 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0660481 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0027055144 = weight(_text_:a in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027055144 = score(doc=2094,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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.
    Content
    Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC 2015 - Cape Town, South Africa in Session 207 - Cataloguing. Vgl. den Kommentar von H. Wiesenmüller [Mail vom 25.06.2015]: "hier etwas höchst Spannendes - eine knappe Darstellung des konsolidierten FR-Modells, auf das wir schon so lange warten, und das im kommenden Jahr in das weltweite Begutachtungsverfahren gehen soll: http://library.ifla.org/1084/. Ich muss das Paper selbst auch erst in Ruhe lesen, sehe aber beim schnellen Durchblättern mit Freude bestätigt, dass die Gruppe-3-Entitäten aus FRBR tatsächlich abgeschafft werden. Die FRSAD-Entität "Thema" (die für alles stehen kann, was Thema eins Werks ist) wird umgetauft in "Res" (von lateinisch "res", Sache) und steht für "any entity in the universe of discourse". Die Entitäten der Gruppe 2 heißen jetzt zusammenfassend "Agent" und teilen sich auf in "Person" und "Group", wobei letzteres Körperschaften und Familien umfasst. Neu eingeführt wird "Time-span". Auf den ersten Blick scheint das jedenfalls alles ganz gut durchdacht zu sein."
  20. Aalberg, T.; O'Neill, E.; Zumer, M.: Extending the LRM Model to integrating resources (2021) 0.00 
    0.001144773 = product of:
  0.006296251 = sum of:
    0.003865826 = weight(_text_:a in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003865826 = score(doc=295,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Integrating resources are distinct in that they change over time in such a way that their previous content is replaced with updated content. This study examines how integrating resources can be modeled using the entities and relationships of the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM) and clarifies how they can be identified. While monographs have been extensively analyzed, integrating resources have received very little attention. Applying the model unmodified to integrating resources is neither practical nor theoretically sound. With the addition of two proposed relationships, the model can be extended to accommodate the diachronic relationship intrinsic between expressions and manifestations exhibited by integrating resources.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.1, S.11-27
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 46
  • el 11
  • r 2
  • m 1
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications