Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

0.020292649 = product of:
  0.060877945 = sum of:
    0.060877945 = sum of:
      0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0133916 = score(doc=3053,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3053, 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=3053)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Examines in detail the author cataloguing practices adopted by the Italian National Library Service, as set out in its 1995 Cataloguing Guide (Guida SBN), and discusses how far these practices accord with the standard 1979 RICA author cataloguing rules. Since the author headings prescribed by RICA include personal names, corporate names and titles, this survey looks at all such SBN catalogue entries having an access point function. Presents many examples of standard and variant forms of heading, and reviews control procedures

Date

22. 2.1999 20:40:57

0.01775607 = product of:
  0.053268205 = sum of:
    0.053268205 = sum of:
      0.01171765 = weight(_text_:of in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01171765 = score(doc=114,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.011871587 = product of:
  0.03561476 = sum of:
    0.03561476 = product of:
      0.07122952 = sum of:
        0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07122952 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.0069250925 = product of:
  0.020775277 = sum of:
    0.020775277 = product of:
      0.041550554 = sum of:
        0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041550554 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 5.2015 11:08:22

0.004730534 = product of:
  0.014191601 = sum of:
    0.014191601 = product of:
      0.028383203 = sum of:
        0.028383203 = weight(_text_:of in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028383203 = score(doc=789,freq=46.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41429368 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
                46.0 = termFreq=46.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"

0.0045800544 = product of:
  0.013740162 = sum of:
    0.013740162 = product of:
      0.027480325 = sum of:
        0.027480325 = weight(_text_:of in 4618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027480325 = score(doc=4618,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 4618, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It is assumed that the conceptual structure of bibliographic records is based on the knowledge of user needs. In applying the entity-relationship model to the library catalogue the authority file and bibliographic records can be viewed as attributes, and the links between records and elements as relationships. Outlines the bibliographic relationships of the UNIMARC format, the analysis of hierarchical relationships carried out by Goosens and Mazur-Rzesos, and the typology of bibliographic documents established by McCallum. Presents 7 types of relationships developed by Tillet and gives results of an empirical study carried out to establish the extent and features of bibliographic relationships in the computerized catalogue of the Library of Congress

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: The conceptual structure of the bibliographic record

0.004175565 = product of:
  0.012526695 = sum of:
    0.012526695 = product of:
      0.02505339 = sum of:
        0.02505339 = weight(_text_:of in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02505339 = score(doc=6686,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A bibliographic relationship is an association between two or more bibliographic items or works. In an effort to provide the theoretical base for a conceptual model of the library catalog, past and future, the bibliographic relationship is examined here in detail. In this first of a series of reports, a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships is derived from an analysis of cataloging rules and types of bibliographic items.

0.003743066 = product of:
  0.0112291975 = sum of:
    0.0112291975 = product of:
      0.022458395 = sum of:
        0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022458395 = score(doc=2006,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since the end of the last century, catalogs have been changing more and more quickly. This change is following a recognizable course, beginning with the publication of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, passing through the reorganization of international cataloging principles, the revision of international standards of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (International Standard for Bibliographic Description), and the foundation of new cataloging codes, such as Resource Description and Access. While principles, models, and rules are well established, bibliographic formats seem to be a bottleneck and users seem far from libraries. This article aims to present an overview of current changes, potential convergences, developments, and weak points from Ranganathan's point of view.

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=786,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=1877,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.

0.00355646 = product of:
  0.0106693795 = sum of:
    0.0106693795 = product of:
      0.021338759 = sum of:
        0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338759 = score(doc=3794,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 3794, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3794)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents the first large-scale investigation of the users and uses of WorldCat.org, the world's largest bibliographic database and global union catalog. Using a mixed-methods approach involving focus group interviews with 120 participants, an online survey with 2,918 responses, and an analysis of transaction logs of approximately 15 million sessions from WorldCat.org, the study provides a new understanding of the context for global union catalog use. We find that WorldCat.org is accessed by a diverse population, with the three primary user groups being librarians, students, and academics. Use of the system is found to fall within three broad types of work-task (professional, academic, and leisure), and we also present an emergent taxonomy of search tasks that encompass known-item, unknown-item, and institutional information searches. Our results support the notion that union catalogs are primarily used for known-item searches, although the volume of traffic to WorldCat.org means that unknown-item searches nonetheless represent an estimated 250,000 sessions per month. Search engine referrals account for almost half of all traffic, but although WorldCat.org effectively connects users referred from institutional library catalogs to other libraries holding a sought item, users arriving from a search engine are less likely to connect to a library.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2166-2181

0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=6739,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on an analytical study to examine the cataloguing rules in AACR2 to reveal practices for indicating bibliographic relationships in cataloguing records and identify types of relationships. Relationships defined and investigated were: equivalence; derivative; descriptive; whole-part; accompanying; sequential; and shared characteristic relationships.Each type of bibliographic relationship has had several linking devices used to connect bibliographic entities. The technology available to create and maintain a catalogue has greatly influenced the types of linking devices included in the catalogue and prescribed in cataloguing rules

0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=272,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 272, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=272)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The decision by many libraries to adopt AACR2, freeze their catalogs, and initiate new catalogs raises several questions regarding connections of links between the catalogs. This paper examines the intended goal of catalogs, how the existence of more than one catalog affects such goals, and alternative methods of linking catalogs for names, subjects, and titles. In addition, recommendations are presented regarding the optimal method of linking catalogs and changes in organization, staffing, and costs are investigated.

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 5360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=5360,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5360, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The author presents the results of the December 1998 CONSER "Survey on Providing Access to Serial Titles within Aggregator Databases." Major findings include 71% of respondents desiring to see full-text serial titles incorporated into the online catalog and nearly 75% interested in acquiring record sets. Also included are an analysis of the numerous survey comments received, strategies toward creating the necessary records and integrating them into OPACs, examples of aggregator analytic records, and other background information on the work of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging's Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases.

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=1878,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.

0.0033478998 = product of:
  0.010043699 = sum of:
    0.010043699 = product of:
      0.020087399 = sum of:
        0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020087399 = score(doc=4442,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper examines differences in modeling component parts of bibliographic resources between two conceptual models in cataloging, as a continuation of the previous study that proposed a model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity. First, the model by IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) was examined from the viewpoint of modeling component parts when each part in itself is a resource to be described. The examination is done on two types of component parts, a content part and a document part, which are different in terms of whether they are physically independent. This results in different structures for these two component types. Secondly, by applying the viewpoint to the model that the author proposed earlier, it has become clear that both component types can be modeled basically in the same manner, indicating the model's superiority in consistency to the FRBR model in this respect.

Source

Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.6, S.692-708

0.003271467 = product of:
  0.009814401 = sum of:
    0.009814401 = product of:
      0.019628802 = sum of:
        0.019628802 = weight(_text_:of in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019628802 = score(doc=3871,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.

0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=439,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recent research suggests that many authority records might be unnecessary in online systems with sophisticated programming. One problem in determining which names can be used without full authority records and the references they provide is that there has been little study of the names themselves, and patterns of variation are unknown. In a random sample of persons with entries in the University of Chicago library general catalog, more than 80% had names appearing in only one form in all works. The study also catagorizes the differences among the forms of those names that do appear in more than one way.

0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 1924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=1924,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 1924, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

FRBR user research has been the least addressed area in FRBR research and development. This article addresses the research gap in evaluating and designing catalogs based on FRBR user research. It draws from three user studies concerning FRBR-based catalogs: (1) user evaluation of three FRBR-based catalogs, (2) user participatory design of a prototype catalog based on the FRBR model, and (3) user evaluation of the resulting FRBR prototype catalog. The major findings from the user studies are highlighted and discussed for future development of FRBR-based catalogs that support various user tasks.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

0.0028993662 = product of:
  0.008698098 = sum of:
    0.008698098 = product of:
      0.017396197 = sum of:
        0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017396197 = score(doc=4463,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper proposes a conceptual model for cataloging which gives primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity, with the aim of approaching critical issues in cataloging, such as the so-called "format variations" and "content versus carrier" issues. The term "expression" is defined as "the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic notation, etc." In this paper, the model by the IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is first re-examined and at the same time the outline of a new model giving primacy to expression-level entity is illustrated by indicating differences from the FRBR model. Second, by applying the concept "user tasks," found in the FRBR model, to the new model outlined in this paper, a scenario on how entities are used by users is created. Third, some examples of bibliographic record equivalents in line with the new model are shown.

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.4, S.363-382