Search (390 results, page 20 of 20)

0.0011771114 = product of:
  0.0047084456 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=1881,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Linked data has dominated the recent discourse in cataloging and metadata. The daily work of the cataloger, however, remains mostly unchanged. This tension is investigated, with a view to reconciling cataloging practice with a linked data future. Aspects of linked data are outlined and a shift in focus in cataloging practice is recommended. Authorities, controlled access points, vocabularies, differentiated values, and local data should be emphasized, and focus should shift from free text fields, keystrokes, punctuation, and aspects of local practice. Through these recommendations, it is argued that catalogers can help prepare the way for the emerging information environment. There exists a tension between the data produced in library catalogues presently and the data requirements of an uncertain future. While Linked Data dominates the theoretical and experimental discussion of the next generation of information discovery, the daily work of the cataloguer remains mostly unchanged. The practice of following standards is essential for cataloguing data, and Resource Description and Access (RDA) attempts to bridge the gap between legacy data and a future where Linked Data is increasingly important. But in this transitional environment, where cataloguers continue to create MARC records in traditional closed library databases, can cataloguers do something more to prepare for the future to make their data smarter and richer? While Linked Data deals with large aggregations of data, how can the daily work of the cataloguer at present be leveraged to positively impact future aggregate data tasks and requirements? In short, what can the present-day cataloguer do to "prepare the way" for future data needs? To investigate, this paper will discuss several key questions. What does the future, particularly Linked Data, require of cataloguing data? What can cataloguers do to "prepare the way" for this future as they produce granular data on a daily basis? To what extent do current standards, including RDA, help to meet future requirements? Is following standards all that is required, or are there forward-facing data principles and practices that should otherwise inform practice? And, finally, to what extent is creating good data a neutral process independent of specific current or future technologies? The authors will examine these issues in reference to existing data quality models proposed within and outside of the cataloguing literature. Practical suggestions for current cataloguing production practice will be made based on the future needs outlined.

0.0011771114 = product of:
  0.0047084456 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 1911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=1911,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 1911, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1911)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) is a specialized institute of UNESCO which undertakes training and research in the field of educational planning and management. IIEP disseminates publications which are the outputs of its research findings. The Documentation Centre is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of several databases. In-house databases include a projects database, consisting of activity records (updated by administrative and research staff), and a grey literature document database and reference archive (mission reports, lessons, masters' papers). The latter contains heterogeneous, multilingual documents which are the outputs of activities. The external database is a publicly accessible bibliographic database which follows AACR. The databases are separate which results in a loss of information. The process was undertaken within the wider context of reorganizing internal cataloguing rules to comply with changing international standards. The objective is to make IIEP's various databases interoperable by factorizing the fragmented elements and reconciling heterogeneous data from multiple sources (different contributors, indexed and non-indexed content). The choice of FRBR can be explained due to the appropriateness of an access point by work. On an information level, it allows the user to optimally retrieve resources through connections between the works. On an institutional level, it would enable the history and evolution of activities and their outputs to be traced. The FRBRized catalogue would be enriched through inter-database relationships and would offer fuller records. The first step was to establish the users' different needs and to develop a typology of the data to be processed. Methodology used was based on the FRBRer model. Then, identifying the entities enabled the work and its levels, the attributes of each group and the relationships to be determined. To account for the processes of time and the complexity of the levels of work, FRBRoo and CIDOC-CRM models were envisaged. Finally, an FRBRoo model was developed.

0.0011771114 = product of:
  0.0047084456 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=1917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The models in the FRBR family include ways to document names or terms for all entities defined in the models, with identification as the ultimate aim, i.e., to distinguish entities by unique appellations and to use the most reliable appellations for entities in a given context. The intention in this paper is to explore the interrelationships between these different models with regards to their treatment of names, identifiers and other appellation entities. The specialisation/generalisation structure of the appellation-related entities and the relationships and properties of these entities will be discussed. The paper also tries to clarify the potential confusion of identity itself in this context - when are we talking about an entity via its name, about the name itself, about the name citation in a document and when about a name of name? In FRBR(er), titles for group 1, names for group 2 and terms for group 3 entities are merely defined as attributes of these entities. This serves the basic requirement of associating the appellation (label) with the entity, but does not allow introducing attributes of these appellations or relationships between and among them. FRAD, completed a decade later, defined as entities name, identifier, and controlled access point. Clearly making the distinction between a bibliographic entity and its name is a significant step taken in FRAD. This permits the separate treatment of relationships between the persons, families, and corporate bodies themselves and those relationships which instead operate between their names or between the controlled access points based on those names. In FRSAD, the most recent model, two entities are defined, Thema and Nomen. Again, the bibliographic entity is distinguished from the full range of its appellations. The FRBRoo model expanded on the treatment of appellations and identifiers in CRM by modeling the identifier assignment process. In FRBRoo, F12 Name was defined but identified with the existing CRM entity E41 Appellation. Current development is concentrating on integrating FRAD and FRSAD concepts into FRBRoo, and this is putting a focus on naming and appellations, causing new classes and properties to be defined, and requiring a re-evaluation of some of the decisions previously made in FRBRoo. As naming and appellations are such a significant feature of the FRBR family of conceptual models, this work is an important step in towards the consolidation of the models into a single coherent statement of the bibliographic universe.

0.0011771114 = product of:
  0.0047084456 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 1918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=1918,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 1918, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1918)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.0011771114 = product of:
  0.0047084456 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 2049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=2049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 2049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2049)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Designed for the digital world and an expanding universe of metadata users, RDA: Resource Description and Access is the new, unified cataloguing standard. Benefits of RDA include: - A structure based on the conceptual models of FRBR (functional requirements for bibliographic data) and FRAD (functional requirements for authority data) to help catalog users find the information they need more easily - A flexible framework for content description of digital resources that also serves the needs of libraries organizing traditional resources - A better fit with emerging technologies, enabling institutions to introduce efficiencies in data capture and storage retrieval. The online RDA Toolkit provides a one-stop resource for evaluating and implementing RDA, and is the most effective way to interact with the new standard. It includes searchable and browseable RDA instructions; two views of RDA content, by table of contents and by element set; user-created and sharable Workflows and Mappings-tools to customize RDA to support your organization's training, internal processes, and local policies; Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS) and links to other relevant cataloguing resources; and the full text of AACR2 with links to RDA. This full-text print version of RDA offers a snapshot that serves as an offline access point to help solo and part-time cataloguers evaluate RDA, as well as to support training and classroom use in any size institution. An index is included. The online RDA Toolkit includes PDFs, but purchasing the print version offers a convenient, time-saving option.

0.0011771114 = product of:
  0.0047084456 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=2088,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this manual, expert cataloguer Ed Jones shows you how to catalogue serials using the new cataloguing standard, RDA: Resource Description and Access. Serials and continuing resources present a variety of unique challenges in bibliographic management, from special issues and unnumbered supplements to recording the changes that a long-running periodical can experience over time. Easing cataloguers through the RDA: Resource Description and Access transition by showing the continuity with past practice, serials cataloguing expert Jones frames the practice within the structure of the FRBR and FRAD conceptual models on which RDA is based. With serials' special considerations in mind, this essential guide explains the familiarities and differences between AACR2 and RDA and demonstrates how serials cataloguers' work fits in the cooperative context of OCLC, CONSER and NACO. Jones looks in detail at the process of cataloguing serials and ongoing integrating resources using RDA, from attributes and relationships between works to identifying related entities. Finally, looking at the possibilities offered by Linked Data, he presents examples of how RDA records can ultimately engage with the Semantic Web.

0.0011771114 = product of:
  0.0047084456 = sum of:
    0.0047084456 = product of:
      0.018833783 = sum of:
        0.018833783 = weight(_text_:based in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018833783 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

8.8283356E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313342 = sum of:
    0.0035313342 = product of:
      0.014125337 = sum of:
        0.014125337 = weight(_text_:based in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014125337 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.09986758 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.

8.8283356E-4 = product of:
  0.0035313342 = sum of:
    0.0035313342 = product of:
      0.014125337 = sum of:
        0.014125337 = weight(_text_:based in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014125337 = score(doc=4530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.09986758 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Library specialists in the cataloging and metadata professions have a greater purpose than simply managing information and connecting users to resources. There is a deeper and more profound impact that comes of their work: preservation of the human record. Conversations with Catalogers in the 21st Century contains four chapters addressing broad categories of issues that catalogers and metadata librarians are currently facing. Every important topic is covered, such as changing metadata practices, standards, data record structures, data platforms, and user expectations, providing both theoretical and practical information. Guidelines for dealing with present challenges are based on fundamentals from the past. Recommendations on training staff, building new information platforms of digital library resources, documenting new cataloging and metadata competencies, and establishing new workflows enable a real-world game plan for improvement.

5.885557E-4 = product of:
  0.0023542228 = sum of:
    0.0023542228 = product of:
      0.009416891 = sum of:
        0.009416891 = weight(_text_:based in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009416891 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14144066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04694356 = queryNorm
            0.06657839 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Chapter 8 discusses issues of archiving and preserving digital materials. The chapter reiterates, "What is the point of all of this if the resources identified and catalogued are not preserved?" (Gorman, 2003, p. 16). Discussion about preservation and related issues is organized in five sections that successively ask why, what, who, how, and how much of the plethora of digital materials should be archived and preserved. These are not easy questions because of media instability and technological obsolescence. Stakeholders in communities with diverse interests compete in terms of which community or representative of a community has an authoritative say in what and how much get archived and preserved. In discussing the above-mentioned questions, the authors once again provide valuable information and lessons from a number of initiatives in Europe, Australia, and from other global initiatives. The Draft Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage and the Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage, both published by UNESCO, are discussed and some of the preservation principles from the Guidelines are listed. The existing diversity in administrative arrangements for these new projects and resources notwithstanding, the impact on content produced for online reserves through work done in digital projects and from the use of metadata and the impact on levels of reference services and the ensuing need for different models to train users and staff is undeniable. In terms of education and training, formal coursework, continuing education, and informal and on-the-job training are just some of the available options. The intensity in resources required for cataloguing digital materials, the questions over the quality of digital resources, and the threat of the new digital environment to the survival of the traditional library are all issues quoted by critics and others, however, who are concerned about a balance for planning and resources allocated for traditional or print-based resources and newer digital resources. A number of questions are asked as part of the book's conclusions in Chapter 10. Of these questions, one that touches on all of the rest and upon much of the book's content is the question: What does the future hold for metadata in libraries? Metadata standards are alive and well in many communities of practice, as Chapters 2-6 have demonstrated. The usefulness of metadata continues to be high and innovation in various elements should keep information professionals engaged for decades to come. There is no doubt that metadata have had a tremendous impact in how we organize information for access and in terms of who, how, when, and where contact is made with library services and collections online. Planning and commitment to a diversity of metadata to serve the plethora of needs in communities of practice are paramount for the continued success of many digital projects and for online preservation of our digital heritage."