Search (63 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. RDA Toolkit (2) : August 2017 (2017) 0.02 
    0.023035955 = product of:
  0.03455393 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=3995,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 3995, 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=3995)
    0.027656946 = product of:
      0.055313893 = sum of:
        0.055313893 = weight(_text_:de in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055313893 = score(doc=3995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 3995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Am 8. August 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/august2017release> erschienen. Mit diesem Release ist die deutsche Übersetzung auf demselben Stand wie die englische Originalausgabe vom April 2017. Alle Änderungen aus dem Proposalverfahren 2016 und auch aus den Fast Tracks (für kleinere Änderungen) sind eingearbeitet und übersetzt. Ebenfalls aktualisiert wurden Glossar und RDA Registry<http://www.rdaregistry.info/>. Die deutsche Übersetzung ist im Zeitplan des 3R-Projekts (RDA Toolkit Restructure and Redesign Projekt). Alle anderen Übersetzungen des RDA Toolkits werden später im Jahr folgen. Die Änderungsdokumentation für das August-Release des RDA Toolkit finden Sie im RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/3xLSBg>. Aktualisiert wurden auch die von der Fachgruppe Erschließung (FG E) kooperativ erarbeiteten Anwendungsrichtlinien für den deutschsprachigen Raum (D-A-CH). Diese sind auch in Französisch abrufbar. Eine Gesamtübersicht der D-A-CH AWR pro Kapitel ist im RDA Toolkit unter dem Reiter "Ressourcen". Die Änderungsdokumentation der D-A-CH AWR finden Sie ebenfalls im RDA-Info-Wiki.<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/1hLSBg>. [Inetbib vom 09.08.2017].
    Content
    Vgl. auch: http://www.aspb.de/de/rda/.
  2. RDA Toolkit (3) : Oktober 2017 (2017) 0.02 
    0.01978939 = product of:
  0.029684084 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=3994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3994, 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=3994)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=3994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Am 10. Oktober 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits erschienen. Aufgrund des 3R-Projekts (RDA Toolkit Restruction and Redesign Project) gab es keine inhaltlichen Änderungen am Regelwerkstext. Es wurden ausschließlich Änderungen an den D-A-CH vorgenommen, die in der Änderungsdokumentation im RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/1hLSBg> aufgelistet sind. Die Gesamtübersicht der D-A-CH nach Kapiteln finden Sie im RDA Toolkit unter dem Reiter "Ressourcen". Wir möchten daran erinnern, dass für die Anwendung von RDA im deutschsprachigen Raum jeweils der deutsche Text maßgeblich ist. Im Juni 2018 wird das RDA Toolkit einen Relaunch erfahren und mit einer neuen Oberfläche erscheinen. Dieser beinhaltet ein Redesign der Toolkit-Oberfläche und die inhaltliche Anpassung des Standards RDA an das Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM) sowie die künftige stärkere Ausrichtung auf die aktuellen technischen Möglichkeiten durch den sogenannten 4-Fold-Path. Zunächst wird im Juni 2018 die englische Originalausgabe der RDA in der neuen Form erscheinen. Alle Übersetzungen werden in einer Übergangszeit angepasst. Hierfür wird die alte Version des RDA Toolkit für ein weiteres Jahr zur Verfügung gestellt. Der Stand Oktober 2017 der deutschen Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien bleiben bis zur Anpassung eingefroren. Im geplanten Dezember-Release des RDA Toolkit wird es keine Änderungen für die deutsche Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien geben. [Inetbib vom 11.10.2017]
    Content
    Vgl. auch: http://www.aspb.de/de/rda/.
  3. RDA Toolkit (1) (2017) 0.02 
    0.01757718 = product of:
  0.02636577 = sum of:
    0.0033183133 = weight(_text_:a in 3996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033183133 = score(doc=3996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 3996, 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=3996)
    0.023047457 = product of:
      0.046094913 = sum of:
        0.046094913 = weight(_text_:de in 3996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046094913 = score(doc=3996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23740499 = fieldWeight in 3996, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3996)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Am 14. Februar 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/development/February2017release> erschienen. Das Release enthält im englischen Text alle Änderungen aus dem Fast-Track-Verfahren RSC/Sec/6<http://www.rda-rsc.org/sites/all/files/RSC-Sec-6.pdf>. Ebenso enthalten sind die Updates der LC-PCC PS (Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements) und der MLA Best Practices. Neu aufgenommen wurden die Policy Statements der Library and Archives Canada in Kooperation mit der Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec. Diese sind sowohl im Register als auch im Text über ein Icon (dunkel violett) mit den Buchstaben LAC/BAC-BAnQ ansteuerbar. Ab sofort ist es möglich sich auch die Policy Statements in einer zweisprachigen Ansicht anzeigen zu lassen, dazu wurde die Funktion Select Language und Dual View in der Symbolliste unter dem Reiter "Ressourcen" eingefügt. Im deutschen Text wurden ausschließlich Änderungen an den Anwendungsrichtlinien für den deutschsprachigen Raum (D-A-CH) eingearbeitet. Die dazugehörige Übersicht (Kurz- bzw. Langversion) finden Sie im RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/1hLSBg>. Mitte April 2017 wird das nächste Release des RDA Toolkit erscheinen, eingearbeitet werden die verabschiedeten Proposals, die im November 2016 vom RDA Steering Committee (RSC) beschlossen wurden. Die Umsetzung der Änderungen in der deutschen Übersetzung aus den Fast-Track-Dokumenten RSC/Sec/4 und RSC/Sec/5 und RSC/Sec/6 sind für den August 2017 geplant.
    Content
    Vgl. auch: http://www.aspb.de/de/rda/.
  4. Leresche, F.: Libraries and archives : sharing standards to facilitate access to cultural heritage (2008) 0.02 
    0.017297635 = product of:
  0.025946451 = sum of:
    0.0075084865 = weight(_text_:a in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075084865 = score(doc=1425,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
    0.018437965 = product of:
      0.03687593 = sum of:
        0.03687593 = weight(_text_:de in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687593 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.18992399 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This presentation shares the French experience of collaboration between archivists and librarians, led by working groups with the Association française de normalisation (AFNOR). With the arrival of the Web, the various heritage institutions are increasingly aware of their areas of commonality and the need for interoperability between their catalogues. This is particularly true for archives and libraries, which have developed standards for meeting their specific needs Regarding document description, but which are now seeking to establish a dialogue for defining a coherent set of standards to which professionals in both communities can refer. After discussing the characteristics of the collections held respectively in archives and libraries, this presentation will draw a portrait of the standards established by the two professional communities in the following areas: - description of documents - access points in descriptions and authority records - description of functions - identification of conservation institutions and collections It is concluded from this study that the standards developed by libraries on the one hand and by archives on the other are most often complementary and that each professional community is being driven to use the standards developed by the other, or would at least profit from doing so. A dialogue between the two professions is seen today as a necessity for fostering the compatibility and interoperability of standards and documentary tools. Despite this recognition of the need for collaboration, the development of standards is still largely a compartmentalized process, and the fact that normative work is conducted within professional associations is a contributing factor. The French experience shows, however, that it is possible to create working groups where archivists and librarians unite and develop a comprehensive view of the standards and initiatives conducted by each, with the goal of articulating them as best they can for the purpose of interoperability, yet respecting the specific requirements of each.
  5. Delsey, T.: ¬The Making of RDA (2016) 0.02 
    0.016840585 = product of:
  0.025260875 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=2946,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
    0.01836389 = product of:
      0.03672778 = sum of:
        0.03672778 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03672778 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15821345 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The author revisits the development of RDA from its inception in 2005 through to its initial release in 2010. The development effort is set in the context of an evolving digital environment that was transforming both the production and dissemination of information resources and the technologies used to create, store, and access data describing those resources. The author examines the interplay between strategic commitments to align RDA with new conceptual models, emerging database structures, and metadata developments in allied communities, on the one hand, and compatibility with AACR2 legacy databases on the other. Aspects of the development effort examined include the structuring of RDA as a resource description language, organizing the new standard as a working tool, and refining guidelines and instructions for recording RDA data.
    Date
    17. 5.2016 19:22:40
    Type
    a
  6. RDA Toolkit (4) : Dezember 2017 (2017) 0.01 
    0.014794806 = product of:
  0.022192208 = sum of:
    0.0037542433 = weight(_text_:a in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0037542433 = score(doc=4283,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.072065435 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
    0.018437965 = product of:
      0.03687593 = sum of:
        0.03687593 = weight(_text_:de in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687593 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.18992399 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Am 12. Dezember 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits erschienen. Dabei gab es, aufgrund des 3R-Projekts (RDA Toolkit Restruction and Redesign Project), keine inhaltlichen Änderungen am RDA-Text. Es wurden ausschließlich die Übersetzungen in finnischer und französischer Sprache, ebenso wie die dazugehörigen Policy statements, aktualisiert. Für den deutschsprachigen Raum wurden in der Übersetzung zwei Beziehungskennzeichnungen geändert: Im Anhang I.2.2 wurde die Änderung von "Sponsor" zu "Träger" wieder rückgängig gemacht. In Anhang K.2.3 wurde "Sponsor" zu "Person als Sponsor" geändert. Außerdem wurde die Übersetzung der Anwendungsrichtlinien (D-A-CH AWR) ins Französische aktualisiert. Dies ist das vorletzte Release vor dem Rollout des neuen Toolkits. Das letzte Release im Januar/Februar 2018 wird die norwegische Übersetzung enthalten. Im Juni 2018 wird das RDA Toolkit ein Relaunch erfahren und mit einer neuen Oberfläche erscheinen. Dieser beinhaltet ein Redesign der Toolkit-Oberfläche und die inhaltliche Anpassung des Standards RDA an das Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM) sowie die künftige stärkere Ausrichtung auf die aktuellen technischen Möglichkeiten. Zunächst wird im Juni 2018 die englische Originalausgabe der RDA in der neuen Form erscheinen. Alle Übersetzungen werden in einer Übergangszeit angepasst. Hierfür wird die alte Version des RDA Toolkit für ein weiteres Jahr zur Verfügung gestellt. Der Stand Dezember 2017 der deutschen Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien bleiben bis zur Anpassung eingefroren. Nähere Information zum Rollout finden Sie unter dem folgenden Link<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/3Rproject/SR3>. [Inetbib vom 13.12.2017]
    Content
    Vgl. auch: http://www.aspb.de/de/rda/.
  7. Stephens, O.: Introduction to OpenRefine (2014) 0.00 
    0.0039819763 = product of:
  0.011945928 = sum of:
    0.011945928 = weight(_text_:a in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011945928 = score(doc=2884,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    OpenRefine is described as a tool for working with 'messy' data - but what does this mean? It is probably easiest to describe the kinds of data OpenRefine is good at working with and the sorts of problems it can help you solve. OpenRefine is most useful where you have data in a simple tabular format but with internal inconsistencies either in data formats, or where data appears, or in terminology used. It can help you: Get an overview of a data set Resolve inconsistencies in a data set Help you split data up into more granular parts Match local data up to other data sets Enhance a data set with data from other sources Some common scenarios might be: 1. Where you want to know how many times a particular value appears in a column in your data. 2. Where you want to know how values are distributed across your whole data set. 3. Where you have a list of dates which are formatted in different ways, and want to change all the dates in the list to a single common date format.
  8. BIBFRAME Relationships (2014) 0.00 
    0.0038316585 = product of:
  0.011494976 = sum of:
    0.011494976 = weight(_text_:a in 8920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011494976 = score(doc=8920,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 8920, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8920)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A BIBFRAME Relationship is a relationship between a BIBFRAME Work or Instance and another BIBFRAME Work or Instance. Thus there are four types of relationships: Work to Work - Work to Instance - Instance to Work - Instance to Instance
  9. McGrath, K.; Kules, B.; Fitzpatrick, C.: FRBR and facets provide flexible, work-centric access to items in library collections (2011) 0.00 
    0.003793148 = product of:
  0.011379444 = sum of:
    0.011379444 = weight(_text_:a in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011379444 = score(doc=2430,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper explores a technique to improve searcher access to library collections by providing a faceted search interface built on a data model based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). The prototype provides a Workcentric view of a moving image collection that is integrated with bibliographic and holdings data. Two sets of facets address important user needs: "what do you want?" and "how/where do you want it?" enabling patrons to narrow, broaden and pivot across facet values instead of limiting them to the tree-structured hierarchy common with existing FRBR applications. The data model illustrates how FRBR is being adapted and applied beyond the traditional library catalog.
    Type
    a
  10. Cataloging Internet resources : a manual and practical guide (1996) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=5903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  11. Hegna, K.: Using FRBR (2004) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 3759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=3759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3759)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  12. Mimno, D.; Crane, G.; Jones, A.: Hierarchical catalog records : implementing a FRBR catalog (2005) 0.00 
    0.0035395343 = product of:
  0.010618603 = sum of:
    0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010618603 = score(doc=1183,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) lay the foundation for a new generation of cataloging systems that recognize the difference between a particular work (e.g., Moby Dick), diverse expressions of that work (e.g., translations into German, Japanese and other languages), different versions of the same basic text (e.g., the Modern Library Classics vs. Penguin editions), and particular items (a copy of Moby Dick on the shelf). Much work has gone into finding ways to infer FRBR relationships between existing catalog records and modifying catalog interfaces to display those relationships. Relatively little work, however, has gone into exploring the creation of catalog records that are inherently based on the FRBR hierarchy of works, expressions, manifestations, and items. The Perseus Digital Library has created a new catalog that implements such a system for a small collection that includes many works with multiple versions. We have used this catalog to explore some of the implications of hierarchical catalog records for searching and browsing. Current online library catalog interfaces present many problems for searching. One commonly cited failure is the inability to find and collocate all versions of a distinct intellectual work that exist in a collection and the inability to take into account known variations in titles and personal names (Yee 2005). The IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) attempts to address some of these failings by introducing the concept of multiple interrelated bibliographic entities (IFLA 1998). In particular, relationships between abstract intellectual works and the various published instances of those works are divided into a four-level hierarchy of works (such as the Aeneid), expressions (Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), manifestations (a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), and items (my copy of a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid). In this formulation, each level in the hierarchy "inherits" information from the preceding level. Much of the work on FRBRized catalogs so far has focused on organizing existing records that describe individual physical books. Relatively little work has gone into rethinking what information should be in catalog records, or how the records should relate to each other. It is clear, however, that a more "native" FRBR catalog would include separate records for works, expressions, manifestations, and items. In this way, all information about a work would be centralized in one record. Records for subsequent expressions of that work would add only the information specific to each expression: Samuel Butler's translation of the Iliad does not need to repeat the fact that the work was written by Homer. This approach has certain inherent advantages for collections with many versions of the same works: new publications can be cataloged more quickly, and records can be stored and updated more efficiently.
    Type
    a
  13. Weinheimer, J.: ¬A visual explanation of the areas defined by AACR2, RDA, ISBD, LC NAF, LC Classification, LC Subject Headings, Dewey Classification, MARC21 : plus a quick look at ISO2709, MARCXML and a version of BIBFRAME (2015) 0.00 
    0.0035117732 = product of:
  0.010535319 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=2882,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This short publication was made for two reasons. First, to provide a simple way to help people understand a bit more precisely what is defined by RDA, AACR2, MARC format, and so on. In this way, when someone says that MARC, or AARC2, or ISBD should change, they will have a better idea of what each term does and does not pertain to. One record has been chosen at random and analysed in various ways. This publication is far from complete and does not pretend to teach anything, it only demonstrates. When someone talks about, e.g. MARC, all the reader needs to do is look at the colored areas to get an idea of what that means.
    Source
    http://blog.jweinheimer.net/wp-content/Ebooks/A%20visual%20explanation%20of%20the%20are%20-%20James%20Weinheimer.pdf
  14. Edmunds, J.: Roadmap to nowhere : BIBFLOW, BIBFRAME, and linked data for libraries (2017) 0.00 
    0.0035117732 = product of:
  0.010535319 = sum of:
    0.010535319 = weight(_text_:a in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010535319 = score(doc=3523,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?
    Type
    a
  15. O'Neill, E.T.: ¬The FRBRization of Humphry Clinker : a case study in the application of IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (2002) 0.00 
    0.00325127 = product of:
  0.009753809 = sum of:
    0.009753809 = weight(_text_:a in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009753809 = score(doc=2433,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 2433, 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=2433)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The goal of OCLC's FRBR projects is to examine issues associated with the conversion of a set of bibliographic records to conform to FRBR requirements (a process referred to as "FRBRization"). The goals of this FRBR project were to: - examine issues associated with creating an entity-relationship model for (i.e., "FRBRizing") a non-trivial work - better understand the relationship between the bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic record is sufficient to reliably identify the FRBR entities - to develop a data set that could be used to evaluate FRBRization algorithms. Using an exemplary work as a case study, lead scientist Ed O'Neill sought to: - better understand the relationship between bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic records is sufficient to reliably identify FRBR entities.
  16. Byrd, J.; Charbonneau, G.; Charbonneau, M.; Courtney, A.; Johnson, E.; Leonard, K.; Morrison, A.; Mudge, S.; O'Bryan, A.; Opasik, S.; Riley, J.; Turchyn, S.: ¬A white paper on the future of cataloging at Indiana University (2006) 0.00 
    0.003128536 = product of:
  0.009385608 = sum of:
    0.009385608 = weight(_text_:a in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009385608 = score(doc=3225,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.
  17. Seymour, C.: ¬A time to build : Israeli cataloging in transition (2000) 0.00 
    0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 5412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=5412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5412)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  18. Danskin, A.: FRBR UnMARCed : RDA cataloguing with RIMMF (RDA in Many Metadata Formats) (2015) 0.00 
    0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  19. FictionFinder : a FRBR-based prototype for fiction in WorldCat (o.J.) 0.00 
    0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 2432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=2432,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2432, 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=2432)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    FictionFinder is a FRBR-based prototype that provides access to over 2.9 million bibliographic records for fiction books, eBooks, and audio materials described in OCLC WorldCat. This project applies principles of the FRBR model to aggregate bibliographic information above the manifestation level. Records are clustered into works using the OCLC FRBR Work-Set Algorithm. The algorithm collects bibliographic records into groups based on author and title information from bibliographic and authority records. Author names and titles are normalized to construct a key. All records with the same key are grouped together in a work set.
  20. Forero, D.; Peterson, N.; Hamilton, A.: Building an institutional author search tool (2019) 0.00 
    0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=5441,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5441, 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=5441)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Ability to collect time-specific lists of faculty publications has become increasingly important for academic departments. At OHSU publication lists had been retrieved manually by a librarian who conducted literature searches in bibliographic databases. These searches were complicated and time consuming, and the results were large and difficult to assess for accuracy. The OHSU library has built an open web page that allows novices to make very sophisticated institution-specific queries. The tool frees up library staff, provides users with an easy way of retrieving reliable local publication information from PubMed, and gives an opportunity for more sophisticated users to modify the algorithm or dive into the data to better understand nuances from a strong jumping off point.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 35
  • n 5
  • r 2
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes