Search (792 results, page 40 of 40)

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=2525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

D-Lib magazine. 13(2007) nos.1/2, x S

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=3258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3258, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Knowledge organization. 36(2009) no.1, S.46-59

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=4145,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4145, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3416) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=3416,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3416, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3416)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.1, S.24-36

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=4676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4676, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.1, S.61-70

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=5312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

1. 7.2019 18:48:18

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=5708,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of documentation. 76(2020) no.1, S.49-66

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=59,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 59, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=59)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.69-83

1.707938E-4 = product of:
  0.0039282576 = sum of:
    0.0039282576 = product of:
      0.007856515 = sum of:
        0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007856515 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=1917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

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.

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 1918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=1918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 1918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

RDA, Resource Description and Access, is based on the foundation of the original entity-relationship statements of the conceptual models FRBR and FRAD. RDA not only uses the vocabulary of entities, attributes and relationships, as well as the user tasks, described in the models, these concepts also form an integral feature of its structure at both the macro level (the organisation of the sections and chapters of RDA reflects the models) and at a more detailed level within chapters. This paper reviews the degree of alignment of RDA with FRBR and FRAD, covering the areas of user tasks, entities, attributes, and relationships, and discusses the divergences of greater or lesser significance which exist. The FRBR user tasks are almost identical to the corresponding RDA tasks, but in RDA the wording and naming of tasks corresponding to the FRAD user tasks is reoriented towards the point of view of the end user. RDA adopts the bibliographic entities, but does not treat the FRAD entities name, identifier, or controlled access point as entities in their own right, even though the essence of the FRAD model of authority control is integrated into RDA. RDA's data elements can generally be traced back to attributes defined in either FRBR or FRAD, although at times at a greater level of granularity. The FRBR primary relationships are all included in RDA, but a direct link between work and manifestation is also defined in RDA with the work manifested relationship. RDA takes steps towards the harmonisation of the separate models, some obvious, such as adding the entity family to group 2 and using the FRAD definition of the entities person and corporate body, others less so, for instance in harmonising the different treatment of relationships among group 1 entities in the organisation of the relationship designators in appendix J. The ways in which RDA implements both FRBR and FRAD into a single content standard, as well as the ways in which RDA diverges from the models, may provide valuable insights for the consolidation of the FRBR family of conceptual models.

1.3663506E-4 = product of:
  0.0031426062 = sum of:
    0.0031426062 = product of:
      0.0062852125 = sum of:
        0.0062852125 = weight(_text_:1 in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0062852125 = score(doc=2960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.1085631 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Source

Jlis.it. 7(2016) no.1, S.181-205