Search (67 results, page 1 of 4)

0.0096099 = product of:
  0.07207425 = sum of:
    0.0121659525 = weight(_text_:und in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0121659525 = score(doc=3995,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 3995, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3995)
    0.0026457112 = weight(_text_:in in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026457112 = score(doc=3995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3995)
    0.0121659525 = weight(_text_:und in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0121659525 = score(doc=3995,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 3995, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3995)
    0.045096636 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 3995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045096636 = score(doc=3995,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10186133 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.44272578 = fieldWeight in 3995, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3995)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)

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].

0.00864169 = product of:
  0.064812675 = sum of:
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=3994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
    0.0038187557 = weight(_text_:in in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038187557 = score(doc=3994,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=3994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
    0.03758053 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03758053 = score(doc=3994,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10186133 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.36893815 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)

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]

0.006332234 = product of:
  0.04749175 = sum of:
    0.010470784 = weight(_text_:und in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010470784 = score(doc=4283,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.219024 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=4283,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
    0.010470784 = weight(_text_:und in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010470784 = score(doc=4283,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.219024 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
    0.021258758 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021258758 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10186133 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20870294 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)

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]
"das RDA Steering Committee (RSC) hat eine Verlautbarung<http://www.rda-rsc.org/sites/all/files/RSC-Chair-19.pdf> zum 3R Project und dem Release des neuen RDA Toolkits am 13. Juni 2018 herausgegeben. Außerdem wurde ein neuer Post zum Projekt auf dem RDA Toolkit Blog veröffentlicht "What to Expect from the RDA Toolkit beta site"<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/3Rproject/Beta>. Die deutsche Übersetzung folgt in Kürze auf dem RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/display/RDAINFO/RDA-Info>. Für den deutschsprachigen Raum wird das Thema im Rahmen des Deutschen Bibliothekartags in Berlin im Treffpunkt Standardisierung am Freitag, den 15. Juni aufgegriffen. Die durch das 3R Project entstandenen Anpassungsarbeiten für den DACH-Raum werden im Rahmen eines 3R-DACH-Projekts<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/v5jpBw> in den Fachgruppen des Standardisierungsausschusses durchgeführt. Für die praktische Arbeit ändert sich bis zur Durchführung von Anpassungsschulungen nichts. Basis für die Erschließung bleibt bis dahin die aktuelle Version des RDA Toolkits in deutscher Sprache." [Mail R. Behrens an Inetbib vom 11.06.2018].

0.004240915 = product of:
  0.031806864 = sum of:
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
    0.003983958 = weight(_text_:s in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003983958 = score(doc=3005,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.16988087 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)

Footnote

Rez. in: ZfBB 47(2000) H.1, S.102-105 (H. Wiese)

Pages

436+370 S

Source

http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/aacr.pdf und http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/jsc/aacr2.pdf

0.003855255 = product of:
  0.03855255 = sum of:
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2459,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=2459,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2459,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)

Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?

0.003855255 = product of:
  0.03855255 = sum of:
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2484,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2484, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2484)
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=2484,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2484, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2484)
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2484,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2484, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2484)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)

Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?

0.0027822906 = product of:
  0.027822906 = sum of:
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 3996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=3996,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 3996, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3996)
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 3996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=3996,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 3996, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3996)
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 3996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=3996,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 3996, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3996)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)

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.

0.0026232991 = product of:
  0.026232991 = sum of:
    0.010470784 = weight(_text_:und in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010470784 = score(doc=2094,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.219024 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=2094,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.010470784 = weight(_text_:und in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010470784 = score(doc=2094,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.219024 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)

Abstract

The FR family of conceptual models has grown to include three separate models prepared independently over many years by different working groups: FRBR for bibliographic data, FRAD for authority data, and FRSAD for subject authority data. Even as FRAD and FRSAD were being finalized in 2009-2010, it became clear that it would be necessary to combine or consolidate the FR family into a single coherent model to clarify the understanding of the overall model and remove barriers to its adoption. The FRBR Review Group has been working towards this since 2011, constituting a Consolidation Editorial Group in 2013. The consolidation task involves not only spelling out how the three existing models fit together, but requires taking a fresh look at the models to incorporate insights gained since their initial publications. This paper, based directly on the work of the Consolidation Editorial Group, provides the first public report of the consolidated model, tentatively referred to as the FRBR-Library Reference Model (FRBR-LRM), and the guiding principles that have been applied in its development.

Content

Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC 2015 - Cape Town, South Africa in Session 207 - Cataloguing. Vgl. den Kommentar von H. Wiesenmüller [Mail vom 25.06.2015]: "hier etwas höchst Spannendes - eine knappe Darstellung des konsolidierten FR-Modells, auf das wir schon so lange warten, und das im kommenden Jahr in das weltweite Begutachtungsverfahren gehen soll: http://library.ifla.org/1084/. Ich muss das Paper selbst auch erst in Ruhe lesen, sehe aber beim schnellen Durchblättern mit Freude bestätigt, dass die Gruppe-3-Entitäten aus FRBR tatsächlich abgeschafft werden. Die FRSAD-Entität "Thema" (die für alles stehen kann, was Thema eins Werks ist) wird umgetauft in "Res" (von lateinisch "res", Sache) und steht für "any entity in the universe of discourse". Die Entitäten der Gruppe 2 heißen jetzt zusammenfassend "Agent" und teilen sich auf in "Person" und "Group", wobei letzteres Körperschaften und Familien umfasst. Neu eingeführt wird "Time-span". Auf den ersten Blick scheint das jedenfalls alles ganz gut durchdacht zu sein."

0.0016373465 = product of:
  0.016373465 = sum of:
    0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005915991 = score(doc=2946,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
    0.008767224 = product of:
      0.017534448 = sum of:
        0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017534448 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = 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)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)

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

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft zu RDA.

Source

Jlis.it. 7(2016) no.2, S.25-47

0.0015608924 = product of:
  0.023413386 = sum of:
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Überblick über die Ideen und Ziele des FRBR-Ansatzes

7.4434717E-4 = product of:
  0.011165207 = sum of:
    0.008774832 = weight(_text_:in in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008774832 = score(doc=2881,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.29906997 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.002390375 = weight(_text_:s in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002390375 = score(doc=2881,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

The FRBR Review Group worked actively towards a consolidated model starting in 2010, in a series of working meetings held in conjunction with IFLA conferences and at an additional mid-year meeting in April 2012 during which the user task consolidation was first drafted. In 2013 in Singapore, the FRBR Review Group constituted a Consolidation Editorial Group (CEG) to focus on the detailed reassessment of attribute s and relationships, and the drafting of this model document. The CEG (at times with other FRBR Review Group members or invited experts) held five multi-day meetings, as well as discussing progress in detail with the FRBR Review Group as a whole during a working meeting in 2014 in Lyon and another in 2015 in Cape Town.

Pages

71 S

7.2630163E-4 = product of:
  0.010894524 = sum of:
    0.008640857 = weight(_text_:in in 2955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008640857 = score(doc=2955,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.29450375 = fieldWeight in 2955, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2955)
    0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 2955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.002253667 = score(doc=2955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 2955, 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=2955)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

A summary of the presence of RDA content in languages other than English in RDA Toolkit, in the RDA Registry, in the RIMMF data editor, and as separate translations is given. Translation policy is explained and the benefits of translation on the content of RDA are noted.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft zu RDA.

Source

Jlis.it. 7(2016) no.2, S.299-306

6.7448284E-4 = product of:
  0.010117242 = sum of:
    0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061733257 = score(doc=477,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
    0.003943917 = weight(_text_:s in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003943917 = score(doc=477,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Footnote

Rez. in: Library resources and technical services 41(1998) no.1, S.347-349 (J.K. Duke)

6.7147816E-4 = product of:
  0.010072172 = sum of:
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 5411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=5411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5411)
    0.00478075 = weight(_text_:s in 5411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00478075 = score(doc=5411,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 5411, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5411)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Object

ISBD(S)

6.261848E-4 = product of:
  0.009392772 = sum of:
    0.0031180005 = weight(_text_:in in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0031180005 = score(doc=5718,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
    0.006274772 = product of:
      0.018824315 = sum of:
        0.018824315 = weight(_text_:l in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018824315 = score(doc=5718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.2195706 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.

5.79343E-4 = product of:
  0.008690145 = sum of:
    0.0069998945 = weight(_text_:in in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0069998945 = score(doc=2954,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2954, 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=2954)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

The library community in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland achieved a common goal at the end of 2015. After more than two years of intensive preparation, the international standard RDA was implemented and the practical work has now started. The article describes the project in terms of the political and organizational situation in the three countries, and points out the objectives which have been achieved as well as the work which is still outstanding. An overview is given of the initial efforts to align special materials with RDA in the German-speaking countries, and the tasks associated with the specific requirements arising from the multilingual nature of Switzerland are described. Furthermore, the article reports on the current strategic developments in the international RDA committees like the RDA Steering Committee (RSC) and the European RDA Interest Group (EURIG).

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft zu RDA.

Source

Jlis.it. 7(2016) no.2, S.253-278

5.766886E-4 = product of:
  0.008650329 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=3225,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
    0.0028170836 = weight(_text_:s in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0028170836 = score(doc=3225,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

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.

Imprint

Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Libraries

Pages

31 S

5.454709E-4 = product of:
  0.008182064 = sum of:
    0.00705523 = weight(_text_:in in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00705523 = score(doc=2960,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
    0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011268335 = score(doc=2960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 2960, 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=2960)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

Comprehensive research on continuing resources has not been conducted in Croatia, therefore this paper will indicate the current bibliographic organisation of continuing resources in comparison to the parameters set by the IFLA models, and the potential flaws of the IFLA models in the bibliographic organisation of continuing resources, in comparison to the valid national code which is used in Croatian cataloguing practice. Research on the corpus of Croatian continuing resources was performed in the period from 2000 and 2011. By using the listed population through the method of deliberate stratified sampling, the titles which had been observed were selected. Through the method of observation of bibliographic records of the selected sample in the NUL catalogue, the frequency of occurrence of parameters from the IFLA models that should identify continuing resources will be recorded and should also show the characteristics of continuing resources. In determining the parameters of observation, the FRBR model is viewed in terms of bibliographic data, FRAD is viewed in terms of other groups or entities or controlled access points for work, person and the corporate body and FRSAD in terms of the third group of entities as the subject or the subject access to continuing resources. Research results indicate that the current model of bibliographic organisation presents a high frequency of attributes that are listed in the IFLA models for all types of resources, although that was not envisaged by the PPIAK, and it is clear that the practice has moved away from the national code which does not offer solutions for all types of resources and ever more so demanding users. The current model of bibliographic organisation of the corpus of Croatian continuing resources in regards to the new IFLA model requires certain changes in order for the user to more easily access and identify continuing resources. The research results also indicate the need to update the entity expression with the attribute mode of expression, and entity manifestation with the attributes mode of issuance, as well as further consideration in terms of the bibliographic organisation of continuing resources.

Source

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

5.447262E-4 = product of:
  0.0081708925 = sum of:
    0.0064806426 = weight(_text_:in in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064806426 = score(doc=2624,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
    0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0016902501 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2624, 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=2624)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

The article presents the work of Elaine Svenonius The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization, translated in Italian and published by Le Lettere of Florence, within the series Pinakes, with the title Il fondamento intellettuale dell'organizzazione dell'informazione. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization defines the theoretical aspects of library science, its philosophical basics and principles, the purposes that must be kept in mind, abstracting from the technology used in a library. The book deals with information organization and bibliographic universe, in particular using the bibliographic entities defined in FRBR, at first. Then, it analyzes all the specific languages by which works and subjects are treated. This work, already acknowledged as a classic, organizes, synthesizes and make easily understood the whole complex of knowledge, practices and procedures developed in the last 150 years.

Source

Jlis.it. 1(2010) no.1, S.1-10

5.101498E-4 = product of:
  0.007652247 = sum of:
    0.005142338 = weight(_text_:in in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005142338 = score(doc=3401,freq=68.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17526478 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          8.246211 = tf(freq=68.0), with freq of:
            68.0 = termFreq=68.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
    0.0025099088 = product of:
      0.007529726 = sum of:
        0.007529726 = weight(_text_:l in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007529726 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.08782824 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)

Abstract

This brief and gentle introduction to some key concepts laid out in the IFLA-produced Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records paper should be read by any librarian wondering what all the "ferber" fuss is about. Scratch that. It should be read by any librarian period. It's time for us to admit our library catalogs are a mess from a user's perspective, and FRBR can provide at least a partial solution to the problems we face in fixing our systems. Therefore, knowledge of the basic concepts that are already beginning to transform our bibliographic systems should be considered basic, foundational, professional knowledge. So start here, if you must, but then feel free to follow up with the full report.

Content

"Catalogers, catalog managers, and others in library technical services have become increasingly interested in, worried over, and excited about FRBR (the acronym for Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records). Staff outside of the management of the library's bibliographic database may wonder what the fuss is about (FERBER? FURBUR?), assuming that FRBR is just another addition to the stable of acronyms that catalogers bandy about, a mate or sibling to MARC and AACR2. FRBR, however, has the potential to inspire dramatic changes in library catalogs, and those changes will greatly impact how reference and resource sharing staff and patrons use this core tool. FRBR is a conceptual model for how bibliographic databases might be structured, considering what functions bibliographic records should fulfill in an era when card catalogs are databases with unique possibilities. In some ways FRBR clarifies certain cataloging practices that librarians have been using for over 160 years, since Sir Anthony Panizzi, Keeper of the Printed Books at the British Museum, introduced a set of 91 rules to catalog the print collections of the museum. Sir Anthony believed that patrons should be able to find a particular work by looking in the catalog, that all of an author's works should be retrievable, and that all editions of a work should be assembled together. In other ways, FRBR extends upon past practice to take advantage fully of the capabilities of digital technology to associate bibliographic records in ways a card catalog cannot. FRBR was prepared by a study group assembled by IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) that included staff of the Library of Congress (LC). The final report of the group, "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records," is available online. The group began by asking how an online library catalog might better meet users' needs to find, identify, select, and obtain the resources they want.
Better navigation FRBR is a way of explaining the bibliographic world, in a library context, to allow for a better arrangement and collocation of records in a bibliographic database and, consequently, better navigation. FRBR could make possible a catalog that would group all the bibliographic records for all the filmed versions of Romeo and Juliet in sets organized by the language of the production, for example. Within each language's set would be separate subsets for those on DVD and those on videocassette. This would eliminate the screen after screen of displays of bibliographic headings, each of which a user has to investigate to determine if the record is really for the resource he or she needs ("Where's the movie version on DVD?") The larger the size of the database, the more such organization promises cleaner, more navigable displays to searchers. This is why FRBR is especially important in resource sharing environments-where databases seem to grow exponentially. From items to works One of the bases for that organization is FRBR's conception of bibliographic resources, which fall into four "entities": item, manifestation, expression, and work. An "item" is familiar to us: the object that sits on a shelf, which gets checked out, damaged, repaired, then eventually discarded. In the current era, it may not be physical but instead virtual, like an ebook. The "item," an individual copy, is a single example of a "manifestation," the publication by a certain publisher of a text, or of a sound or video recording. Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf, published in hardback by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in 1999, is one manifestation. Heaney's translation of Beowulf published in paperback by W.W. Norton in 2000 is another. Heaney's Beowulf as it appears in the collection Wizards: Stories of Magic, Mischief and Mayhem (Thunder's Mouth, 2001) is yet another manifestation. Manifestations are generally what catalogers catalog. All of these are manifestations of an "expression," a more abstract and intangible entity. Heaney's translation of Beowulf, independent of who is publishing it and when, is one "expression" of that work. The translation by Barry Tharaud is another.
What are these two Beowulf translations "expressions" of? I used the term work above, an even more abstract concept in the FRBR model. In this case, the "work" is Beowulf , that ancient intellectual creation or effort that over time has been expressed in multiple ways, each manifested in several different ways itself, with one or more items in each manifestation. This is a pretty gross oversimplification of FRBR, which also details other relationships: among these entities; between these entities and various persons (such as creators, publishers, and owners); and between these entities and their subjects. It also specifies characteristics, or "attributes," of the different types of entities (such as title, physical media, date, availability, and more.). But it should be enough to grasp the possibilities. Now apply it Imagine that you have a patron who needs a copy of Heaney's translation of Beowulf . She doesn't care who published it or when, only that it's Heaney's translation. What if you (or your patron) could place an interlibrary loan call on that expression, instead of looking through multiple bibliographic records (as of March, OCLC's WorldCat had nine regular print editions) for multiple manifestations and then judging which record is the best bet on which to place a request? Combine that with functionality that lets you specify "not Braille, not large print," and it could save you time. Now imagine a patron in want of a copy, any copy, in English, of Romeo and Juliet. Saving staff time means saving money. Whether or not this actually happens depends upon what the library community decides to do with FRBR. It is not a set of cataloging rules or a system design, but it can influence both. Several library system vendors are working with FRBR ideas; VTLS's current integrated library system product Virtua incorporates FRBR concepts in its design. More vendors may follow. How the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules develops the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) to incorporate FRBR will necessarily be a strong determinant of how records work in a "FRBR-ized" bibliographic database.
National FRBR experiments The larger the bibliographic database, the greater the effect of "FRBR-like" design in reducing the appearance of duplicate records. LC, RLG, and OCLC, all influenced by FRBR, are experimenting with the redesign of their databases. LC's Network Development and MARC Standards Office has posted at its web site the results of some of its investigations into FRBR and MARC, including possible display options for bibliographic information. The design of RLG's public catalog, RedLightGreen, has been described as "FRBR-ish" by Merrilee Proffitt, RLG's program officer. If you try a search for a prolific author or much-published title in RedLightGreen, you'll probably find that the display of search results is much different than what you would expect. OCLC Research has developed a prototype "frbrized" database for fiction, OCLC FictionFinder. Try a title search for a classic title like Romeo and Juliet and observe that OCLC includes, in the initial display of results (described as "works"), a graphic indicator (stars, ranging from one to five). These show in rough terms how many libraries own the work-Romeo and Juliet clearly gets a five. Indicators like this are something resource sharing staff can consider an "ILL quality rating." If you're intrigued by FRBR's possibilities and what they could mean to resource sharing workflow, start talking. Now is the time to connect with colleagues, your local and/or consortial system vendor, RLG, OCLC, and your professional organizations. Have input into how systems develop in the FRBR world."