Search (45 results, page 2 of 3)

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).

0.009018113 = product of:
  0.06312679 = sum of:
    0.05092278 = weight(_text_:subject in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05092278 = score(doc=1464,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 1464, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1464)
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1464, 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=1464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper attempts to explore an approach of using an automatic semantic analysis tool to enhance the "subject" access to materials that are not included in the usual library subject cataloging process. Using two research samples the authors analyzed the access points supplied by OpenCalais, a semantic analysis tool. As an aid in understanding how computerized subject analysis might be approached, this paper suggests using the three-layer framework that has been accepted and applied in image analysis, developed by Erwin Panofsky.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.007690453 = product of:
  0.053833168 = sum of:
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=3568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 3568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=3568,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 3568, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3568)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.67-98

0.007690453 = product of:
  0.053833168 = sum of:
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=1955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=1955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.7, S.741-759

0.0067291465 = product of:
  0.047104023 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.5/6, S.507-529

0.0067291465 = product of:
  0.047104023 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 295, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=295)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.1, S.11-27

0.0067291465 = product of:
  0.047104023 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.7, p.619-643

0.0067291465 = product of:
  0.047104023 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=714,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 714, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=714)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=714,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 714, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=714)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.7, p.644-668

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.

0.00527799 = product of:
  0.073891856 = sum of:
    0.073891856 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073891856 = score(doc=2501,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.63215154 = fieldWeight in 2501, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2501)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.004398325 = product of:
  0.061576545 = sum of:
    0.061576545 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061576545 = score(doc=3350,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.52679294 = fieldWeight in 3350, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3350)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Since their beginnings, bibliographic information systems have been displaying results in the form of long, textual lists. With the development of new data models and computer technologies, the need for new approaches to present and interact with bibliographic data has slowly been maturing. To investigate how this could be accomplished, a prototype system, FrbrVis1, was designed to present work families within a bibliographic information system using information visualization. This paper reports on two user studies, a controlled and an observational experiment, that have been carried out to assess the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)-based against an existing system as well as to test four different hierarchical visual layouts. The results clearly show that FrbrVis offers better performance and user experience compared to the baseline system. The differences between the four hierarchical visualizations (Indented tree, Radial tree, Circlepack, and Sunburst) were, on the other hand, not as pronounced, but the Indented tree and Sunburst design proved to be the most successful, both in performance as well as user perception. The paper therefore not only evaluates the application of a visual presentation of bibliographic work families, but also provides valuable results regarding the performance and user acceptance of individual hierarchical visualization techniques.

0.0043094605 = product of:
  0.060332447 = sum of:
    0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060332447 = score(doc=4378,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 4378, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4378)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In 1998, the FRBR model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) was developed under the auspices of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). The library domain finally developed its conceptual model of the bibliographic universe and thus the basis for the development of novel bibliographic information systems. In 2017, the IFLA Library Reference Model (Riva, LeBoeuf and Zumer 2017) was formally accepted as an IFLA standard. The FRBR family of models as well as LRM all start from the user tasks that need to be enabled and supported by bibliographic information systems. The consolidation process included a detailed analysis of all entities, attributes and relationships defined by the FRBR family. In this paper, the main features of the model are presented and described. With IFLA LRM, we finally have a modern model, compatible with the semantic web.

0.004015103 = product of:
  0.05621144 = sum of:
    0.05621144 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05621144 = score(doc=4146,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.480894 = fieldWeight in 4146, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4146)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.004015103 = product of:
  0.05621144 = sum of:
    0.05621144 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05621144 = score(doc=395,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.480894 = fieldWeight in 395, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=395)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.004015103 = product of:
  0.05621144 = sum of:
    0.05621144 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05621144 = score(doc=1769,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.480894 = fieldWeight in 1769, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1769)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose - Bibliographic records should now be used in innovative end-user applications that enable users to learn about, discover and exploit available content, and this information should be interpreted and reused also beyond the library domain. New conceptual models such as FRBR offer the foundation for such developments. The main motivation for this research is to contribute to the adoption of the FRBR model in future bibliographic standards and systems, by analysing limitations in existing bibliographic information and looking for short- and long-term solutions that can improve the data quality in terms of expressing the FRBR model. Design/methodology/approach - MARC records in three collections (BIBSYS catalogue, Slovenian National Bibliography and BTJ catalogue) were first analysed by looking at statistics of field and subfield usage to determine common patterns that express FRBR. Based on this, different rules for interpreting the information were developed. Finally typical problems/errors found in MARC records were analysed. Findings - Different types of FRBR entity-relationship structures that typically can be found in bibliographic records are identified. Problems related to interpreting these from bibliographic records are analyzed. Frbrisation of consistent and complete MARC records is relatively successful, particularly if all entities are systematically described and relationships among them are clearly indicated. Research limitations/implications - Advanced matching was not used for clustering of identical entities. Practical implications - Cataloguing guidelines are proposed to enable better frbrisation of MARC records in the interim period, before new formats are developed and implemented. Originality/value - This is the first in depth analysis of manifestations embodying several expressions and of works and agents as subjects.

0.004015103 = product of:
  0.05621144 = sum of:
    0.05621144 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05621144 = score(doc=2879,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.480894 = fieldWeight in 2879, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2879)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0036750357 = product of:
  0.0514505 = sum of:
    0.0514505 = weight(_text_:subject in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0514505 = score(doc=279,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Continuing the tradition set by the FRBR model, a new IFLA working group was formed to examine the functional requirements for subject authority records (FRSAR). The focus of the FRSAR Working Group is on the user tasks and functional requirements of authority records for the Group 3 entities as defined by FRBR. This paper presents the Working Group's terms of reference and reports on initial activities and subject authority issues discussed.

0.0031100856 = product of:
  0.043541197 = sum of:
    0.043541197 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043541197 = score(doc=4145,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 4145, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4145)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.003047249 = product of:
  0.042661484 = sum of:
    0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042661484 = score(doc=637,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0030006538 = product of:
  0.042009152 = sum of:
    0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 4787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042009152 = score(doc=4787,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 4787, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4787)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records Working Group (FRSAR WG) is the third IFLA Working Group of the FRBR family. It was formed in April 2005 and it was charged with the task of developing a conceptual model of FRBR Group 3 entities within the FRBR framework as they relate to the "aboutness" of works. This paper introduces the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), the model developed by the FRSAR WG, and discusses issues raised during the world-wide review.