Search (46 results, page 2 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Zumer, M."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Zumer, M.: IFLA Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM)-harmonisation of the FRBR family (2018) 0.00 
    0.0011166352 = product of:
  0.006141493 = sum of:
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 4378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=4378,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 4378, 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=4378)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 4378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=4378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4378, 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=4378)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.4, S.310-318
    Type
    a
  17. Mercun, T.; Zumer, M.; Aalberg, T.: Presenting bibliographic families using information visualization : evaluation of FRBR-based prototype and hierarchical visualizations (2017) 0.00 
    0.0011094587 = product of:
  0.006102023 = sum of:
    0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 3350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043660053 = score(doc=3350,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3350, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3350)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3350,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3350, 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=3350)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.392-411
    Type
    a
  18. Riesthuis, G.J.A.; Zumer, M.: FRBR and FRANAR : subject access (2004) 0.00 
    0.0010558002 = product of:
  0.005806901 = sum of:
    0.0044180867 = weight(_text_:a in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044180867 = score(doc=2646,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    In the last decade a discussion has been going an in the Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) about the principles of cataloguing. This discussion was initiated by the widespread replacement of the card and list catalogues by Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) since 1980. In this paper we discuss the role of subject cataloguing in three important documents that are the results of this discussion. Our conclusion is that the interest in subject cataloguing has grown remarkably, but is still not an the level it deserves given the fact that a great part of all searches in OPACs are subject oriented.
    Content
    1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.
    Pages
    S.153-158
    Type
    a
  19. Vilar, P.; Zumer, M.: Perceptions and importance of user friendliness of IR systems according to users' individual characteristics and academic discipline (2008) 0.00 
    9.3052926E-4 = product of:
  0.005117911 = sum of:
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 2378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=2378,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2378, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2378)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=2378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2378, 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=2378)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    This article presents one part of a wider study, performed at the Department of library and information science and book studies (LIS & BS) at the University of Ljubljana (UL). The study investigated the perceptions of user friendliness of information-retrieval systems (IRS) and the role of individual characteristics of users in these perceptions. Based on an expert study, a user study with 61 postgraduate students of the UL was performed. Three interfaces of e-journals were studied: Science Direct, Proquest Direct, and Ebsco Host. Questionnaires and observations were used for data collection. The users'perceptions of user friendliness and of importance of auxiliary functions were investigated. Also, the connections between these perceptions and the users'individual characteristics were identified. Three sets of individual characteristics were included: approaches to studying, thinking styles, and hemisphere leanings. In connection with the dimensions of individual characteristics, very different perceptions of user friendliness were expressed. Some dimensions of individual characteristics were also found to be connected to the users'academic areas. It is shown that participants from different academic areas have different requirements and perceptions of user friendliness. The results of the study are relevant for the design of the user interfaces of disciplinary IR systems. They also have implications for other areas, for example, user education and training.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.12, S.1995-2007
    Type
    a
  20. Aalberg, T.; Zumer, M.: ¬The value of MARC data, or, challenges of frbrisation (2013) 0.00 
    6.7064626E-4 = product of:
  0.0036885543 = sum of:
    0.0019525366 = weight(_text_:a in 1769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0019525366 = score(doc=1769,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 1769, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1769)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=1769,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1769, 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=1769)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.6, S.851-872
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Themes