Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.017042633 = product of:
  0.06817053 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=2845,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
    0.03037167 = product of:
      0.06074334 = sum of:
        0.06074334 = weight(_text_:22 in 2845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06074334 = score(doc=2845,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2845, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The current library bibliographic infrastructure was constructed in the early days of computers - before the Web, XML, and a variety of other technological advances that now offer new opportunities. General requirements of a modern metadata infrastructure for libraries are identified, including such qualities as versatility, extensibility, granularity, and openness. A new kind of metadata infrastructure is then proposed that exhibits at least some of those qualities. Some key challenges that must be overcome to implement a change of this magnitude are identified.

Date

9.12.2005 19:22:38

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.175-181

0.0148187205 = product of:
  0.059274882 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.021476014 = product of:
      0.042952027 = sum of:
        0.042952027 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042952027 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

0.01296638 = product of:
  0.05186552 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
    0.018791512 = product of:
      0.037583023 = sum of:
        0.037583023 = weight(_text_:22 in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037583023 = score(doc=6523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Currently, few resources exist to guide libraries in the cataloguing of community information using the new USMARC Format for Cammunity Information (1993). In developing a community information database, Queens Borough Public Library, New York City, formulated their own cataloguing procedures for applying AACR2, LoC File Interpretations, and USMARC Format for Community Information to community information. Their practices include entering corporate names directly whenever possible and assigning LC subject headings for classes of persons and topics, adding neighbourhood level geographic subdivisions. The guidelines were specially designed to aid non cataloguers in cataloguing community information and have enabled library to maintain consistency in handling corporate names and in assigning subject headings, while creating database that is highly accessible to library staff and users

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.51-69

0.01296638 = product of:
  0.05186552 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.018791512 = product of:
      0.037583023 = sum of:
        0.037583023 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037583023 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.011708075 = product of:
  0.0468323 = sum of:
    0.033409793 = weight(_text_:libraries in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033409793 = score(doc=154,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) has provided a new way to approach manuscript and archival collection representation. A review of previous representational practices and problems highlights the benefits of using EAD. This new approach should be considered a partner rather than an adversary in the access providing process. Technological capabilities now allow for multiple metadata schemas to be employed in the creation of the finding aid. Crosswalks allow for MARC records to be generated from the detailed encoding of an EAD finding aid. In the process of creating these crosswalks and detailed encoding, EAD has generated more changes in traditional processes and procedures than originally imagined. The North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries sought to test the process of crosswalking EAD to MARC, investigating how this process used technology as well as changed physical procedures. By creating a complex and indepth EAD template for finding aids, with accompanying related encoding analogs embedded within the element structure, MARC records were generated that required minor editing and revision for inclusion in the NCSU Libraries OPAC. The creation of this bridge between EAD and MARC has stimulated theoretical discussions about the role of collaboration, technology, and expertise in the ongoing struggle to maximize access to our collections. While this study is a only a first attempt at harnessing this potential, a presentation of the tensions, struggles, and successes provides illumination to some of the larger issues facing special collections today.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.009261699 = product of:
  0.037046798 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 2422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=2422,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2422, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2422)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 7th European Conference, proceedings / ECDL 2003, Trondheim, Norway, August 17-22, 2003

0.008975883 = product of:
  0.071807064 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 2279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=2279,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 2279, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2279)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Standards are important for quality and interoperability in any system. Bibliographic record creation standards such as MARC 21 (Machine Readable Catalogue), CCF (Common Communication Format), UNIMARC (Universal MARC) and their local variations, are in practice all across the library community. ILMS (Integrated Library Management Systems) are using these standards for the design of databases and the creation of bibliographic records. Their use is important for uniformity of the system and bibliographic data, but there are problems when a library wants to switch over from one system to another using different standards. This paper discusses migration from one record standard to another, mapping of data and related issues. Data exported from CDS/ISIS CCF based records to KOHA MARC 21 based records are discussed as a case study. This methodology, with few modifications, can be applied for migration of data in other bibliographicformats too. Freeware tools can be utilized for migration.

0.008268503 = product of:
  0.06614802 = sum of:
    0.06614802 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06614802 = score(doc=1183,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.50813097 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper brings light to the existing practice of cataloging in the college libraries of Assam in terms of utilizing the MARC 21 standard and its structure, i.e., the tags, subfield codes, and indicators. Catalog records from six college libraries are collected and a survey is conducted to understand the local users' information requirements for the catalog. Places, where libraries have scope to improve and which divisions of tags could be more helpful for them in information retrieval, are identified and suggested. This study fulfilled the need for local-level assessment of the catalogs.

0.007813 = product of:
  0.062504 = sum of:
    0.062504 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062504 = score(doc=5172,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48013863 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.

0.0070872875 = product of:
  0.0566983 = sum of:
    0.0566983 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0566983 = score(doc=1438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4355408 = fieldWeight in 1438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1438)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Advanced technology libraries. 27(1998) no.2, S.10-11

0.0063469075 = product of:
  0.05077526 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 5403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=5403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 5403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5403)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0058467137 = product of:
  0.04677371 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=3339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Catalogues have evolved from lists of physical items present in particular libraries into computerized access and retrieval tools for works dispersed across local and national boundaries. Works themselves are no longer constrained by physical form yet cataloguing rules have not evolved in parallel with these developments. Reanalyzes the nature of works and their publication in an approach based on object oriented modelling and demonstrates the advantages to be gained thereby. Suggests a strategic plan to enable an organic transformation to be made from current MARC based cataloguing to object oriented cataloguing. Proposes major revisions of MARC in order to allow records to maximize the benefits of both computerized databases and high speed data networks. This will involve a fundamental shift away from the AACR philosophy of description of, plus access to, physical items

Source

Information technology and libraries. 14(1995) no.3, S.135-153

0.0058467137 = product of:
  0.04677371 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=5409,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 5409, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5409)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

With the introduction of the microcomputer in the 1980s, a revolution of sorts was initiated. In libraries this was evidenced by the acquisition of personal computers and the software to run on them. All that catalogers needed were cataloging rules and a MARC format to ensure their bibliographic control. However, little did catalogers realize they were dealing with an industry that introduced rapid technological changes, which effected continual revision of existing rules and the formulation of special guidelines to deal with the industry's innovative products. This article focuses on the attempts of libraries and organized cataloging groups to develop the Chapter 9 descriptive cataloging rules in AACR2; it highlights selected events and includes cataloging examples that illustrate the evolution of the chapter.

0.005637133 = product of:
  0.045097064 = sum of:
    0.045097064 = product of:
      0.09019413 = sum of:
        0.09019413 = weight(_text_:area in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09019413 = score(doc=5441,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.46192923 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Over the past few years there has been a significant amount of work in the area of cataloging internet resources, primarily using new metadata standards like the Dublin Core, but there has been little work on applying new data description formats like SGML and XML to traditional cataloging practices. What little work has been done in the area of using SGML and XML for traditional bibliographic description has primarily been based on the concept of converting MARC tagging into XML tagging. I suggest that, rather than attempting to convert existing MARC tagging into a new syntax based on SGML or XML, a more fruitful possibility is to return to the cataloging standards and describe their inherent structure, learning from how MARC has been used successfully in modern OPAC while attempting to avoid MARC's rigid field-based restrictions.

0.0047248583 = product of:
  0.037798867 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 7321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=7321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 7321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7321)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 12(1993) no.4, S.383-403

0.0047248583 = product of:
  0.037798867 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=3801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 3801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3801)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Describes the background to the creation of a core bibliographic record for music and sound recordings, provides a definition of a core bibliographic record and presents the core record for printed and manuscript music and the core record for sound recordings which were prepared by the International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres Working Group in Perugia, 1-6 Sep 1996

0.004697878 = product of:
  0.037583023 = sum of:
    0.037583023 = product of:
      0.07516605 = sum of:
        0.07516605 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07516605 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=1589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1589, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1589)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Integration of library data into the Linked Data environment is a key issue in libraries and is approached on the basis of interoperability between library data conceptual models. Achieving interoperability for different representations of the same or related entities between the library and cultural heritage domains shall enhance rich bibliographic data reusability and support the development of new data-driven information services. This paper aims to contribute to the desired interoperability by attempting to map core semantic paths between the BIBFRAME and EDM conceptual models. BIBFRAME is developed by the Library of Congress to support transformation of legacy library data in MARC format into linked data. EDM is the model developed for and used in the Europeana Cultural Heritage aggregation portal.

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=2773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 2773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2773)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In response to libraries' frustration over their rich resources being invisible on the web, Zepheira, at the request of the Library of Congress, created BIBFRAME, a bibliographic metadata framework for cataloging. The model replaces MARC records with linked data, promoting resource visibility through a rich network of links. In place of formal taxonomies, a small but extensible vocabulary streamlines metadata efforts. Rather than using a unique bibliographic record to describe one item, BIBFRAME draws on the Dublin Core and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to generate formalized descriptions of Work, Instance, Authority and Annotation as well as associations between items. Zepheira trains librarians to transform MARC records to BIBFRAME resources and adapt the vocabulary for specialized needs, while subject matter experts and technical experts manage content, site design and usability. With a different approach toward data modeling and metadata, previously invisible resources gain visibility through linking.