Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × theme_ss:"Normdateien"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. MacEwan, A.; Angjeli, A.; Gatenby, J.: ¬The International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) : the evolving future of name authority control (2013) 0.03 
    0.029097255 = product of:
  0.04364588 = sum of:
    0.011379444 = weight(_text_:a in 1939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011379444 = score(doc=1939,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1939, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1939)
    0.032266438 = product of:
      0.064532876 = sum of:
        0.064532876 = weight(_text_:de in 1939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064532876 = score(doc=1939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.33236697 = fieldWeight in 1939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article describes the project to build the initial International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) database by deploying the techniques used to develop the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF). It focuses particularly on the work of the OCLC team in transforming the VIAF "resource file" model of matched data into a robust, operational, and authoritative file of uniquely assigned ISNIs as a base for an ongoing ISNI assignment system, and on the quality assurance validation of the database provided by the British Library and the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The need for future interaction between ongoing ISNI assignment and name authority control in libraries is also explored.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special issue "Cataloging collaborations and partnerships"
    Type
    a
  2. Hartmann, S.; Pampel, H.: GND und ORCID : Brückenschlag zwischen zwei Systemen zur Autorenidentifikation (2017) 0.03 
    0.02872987 = product of:
  0.043094806 = sum of:
    0.0039819763 = weight(_text_:a in 5115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039819763 = score(doc=5115,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5115, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5115)
    0.03911283 = product of:
      0.07822566 = sum of:
        0.07822566 = weight(_text_:de in 5115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07822566 = score(doc=5115,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.4028896 = fieldWeight in 5115, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Die Uneindeutigkeit von Personennamen erschwert im Rahmen der bibliothekarischen Erschließung die eindeutige Zuordnung von Autorinnen und Autoren zu ihren Werken. Bibliotheken im deutschsprachigen Raum adressieren das Problem der Mehrdeutigkeit von Namen durch den Einsatz der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND). Die internationale Initiative ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) verfolgt das gleiche Ziel. Akteur ist hier jedoch die einzelne Wissenschaftlerin oder der einzelne Wissenschaftler. Das Projekt "ORCID DE - Förderung der Open Researcher and Contributor ID in Deutschland" hat sich, dank der Förderung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), unter anderem zum Ziel gesetzt, einen Brückenschlag zwischen den beiden Systemen - GND und ORCID - zu schaffen, um damit die Datenqualität beider Systeme wechselseitig zu erhöhen. Der vorliegende Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über ORCID und das Projekt ORCID DE. Dabei wird insbesondere auf die angestrebte Verlinkung von GND und ORCID eingegangen.
    Type
    a
  3. Pampel, H.; Fenner, M.: ORCID - Offener Standard zur Vernetzung von Forschenden (2016) 0.02 
    0.023060096 = product of:
  0.034590144 = sum of:
    0.0026546507 = weight(_text_:a in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0026546507 = score(doc=2839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.050957955 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
    0.031935494 = product of:
      0.06387099 = sum of:
        0.06387099 = weight(_text_:de in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06387099 = score(doc=2839,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.328958 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Das internationale ORCID-Konsortium vernetzt Publizierende mit ihren Aufsätzen und Forschungsdaten über eine eindeutige ID. Weltweit besitzen bereits über 2 Millionen Forschende eine solche Kennung. Um ORCID in Deutschland zu fördern, wurde das Projektvorhaben "ORCID DE - Förderung der Open Researcher and Contributor ID in Deutschland" gebildet. Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) hat die Förderung des auf drei Jahre angelegten Projekts im Februar 2016 bewilligt. Durch die Integration in über 230 digitale Informationsinfrastrukturen erleichtert die Open Researcher and Contributor ID, kurz ORCID, die Pflege der Publikationsliste für Forscherinnen und Forscher. Die Idee dahinter ist folgende: Jede Person, die im wissenschaftlichen Arbeitsprozess einen Beitrag leistet, kann sich über die eindeutige ORCID-Kennung mit ihren Publikationen, Forschungsdaten und anderen Produkten des Forschungsprozesses (zum Beispiel Software) eindeutig vernetzen. Damit werden diese Objekte sichtbar und technisch verlässlich mit ihren Erschafferinnen und Erschaffern verbunden. ORCID bietet das Potenzial, bisher verteilte Informationen standardisiert zusammenzuführen und damit einen Überblick auf die Forschungsleistung von Forschenden zu ermöglichen. Durch die Offenheit des Systems und des großen internationalen Konsortiums ist ORCID auf dem Weg, ein langfristig gültiger Identifikator im wissenschaftlichen Alltag zu werden.
    Ziel des DFG-Projekts ORCID DE ist es, die vielerorts erwogene Implementierung der ORCID an Hochschulen und außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen durch einen übergreifenden Ansatz nachhaltig zu unterstützen. Dabei stehen organisatorische, technische und rechtliche Fragen gleichermaßen im Fokus. Neben der Schaffung einer zentralen Anlaufstelle für Hochschulen und außeruniversitäre Forschungseinrichtungen sind die Vernetzung und Verbreitung der ORCID im Bereich von Open-Access-Repositorien und -Publikationdiensten sowie die Verzahnung mit der Gemeinsame Normdatei (GND) wesentliche Aspekte des Projekts. Projektpartner von ORCID DE sind das Helmholtz Open Science Koordinationsbüro am Deutschen GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ, die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek und die Universitätsbibliothek Bielefeld. Das Projekt wurde durch die Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformation (DINI) initiiert.
    Type
    a
  4. ORCID (2015) 0.01 
    0.009218982 = product of:
  0.027656946 = sum of:
    0.027656946 = product of:
      0.055313893 = sum of:
        0.055313893 = weight(_text_:de in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055313893 = score(doc=1870,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19416152 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.28488597 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.297489 = idf(docFreq=1634, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    ORCID soll die elektronische Zuordnung von Publikation und Autoren ermöglichen. Dies ist notwendig, da verschiedene Autoren gleiche Namen haben können, Namen sich ändern (z. B. bei Heirat) und Namen in verschiedenen Publikationen unterschiedlich angegeben werden (z. B. einmal die ausgeschriebenen Vornamen, ein anderes Mal aber nur die Initialen). ORCID soll zum De-facto-Standard für die Autorenidentifikation wissenschaftlicher Publikationen werden. Die Etablierung wird von der Non-Profit-Organisation Open Researcher Contributor Identification Initiative organisiert. Zu den Gründungsmitgliedern der Initiative gehören zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Verlagsgruppen (z. B. Elsevier, Nature Publishing Group, Springer) und Forschungsorganisationen (z. B. EMBO, CERN). Die Planungen für ORCID wurden 2010 auf Umfragen gestützt. ORCID ging am 16. Oktober 2012 offiziell an den Start. Am Jahresende 2012 hatte ORCID 42.918 Registrierte, Jahresende 2013 waren es 460.000 Registrierte und im November 2014 hatte ORCID 1 Million Autorenidentifikationen ausgestellt. Vgl. auch den Zusammenhang mit der GND und den Erfassungsleitfaden der DNB unter: https://wiki.dnb.de/x/vYYGAw.
  5. Taniguchi, S.: Event-aware FRBR and FRAD models : are they useful? (2013) 0.00 
    0.0027093915 = product of:
  0.008128175 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=1760,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR)-based model and functional requirements for authority data (FRAD)-based model; both of which incorporate an event concept that transforms FRBR and FRAD with minimal modification. Design/methodology/approach - Relationships between the entities defined in FRBR/FRAD are transformed into event entities and relationships with other kinds of entities. The cardinality of those relationships is also examined. In addition, a comparison of the proposed FRBR-based model with the object-oriented FRBR (FRBROO) is conducted. Findings - In the proposed event-aware FRBR model, an event and its output resource are dependent on each other and necessary information about an event can be expressed with information about its output resource, and vice versa. Therefore, the usefulness and expressiveness of the proposed model is limited. In the FRBROO model, dependency between an event and its output resource is not observed, except in a few cases, since a different resource and event modeling was adopted there. The event-aware FRAD model proposed is useful - but also the scope of its usefulness limited since dependency between an event and its input/output resource is not observed on some event entities. Originality/value - The proposed models are meaningful in terms of understanding the basic structure and features of a model that incorporates an event concept. The usefulness and limitation of event modeling have been clarified through such model building. The proposed models provide a stable basis for examining FRBR/FRAD further.
    Type
    a
  6. Ilik, V.: Cataloger makeover : creating non-MARC name authorities (2015) 0.00 
    0.002682161 = product of:
  0.008046483 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 1884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=1884,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1884, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1884)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article shares a vision of the enterprise of cataloging and the role of catalogers and metadata librarians in the twenty-first century. The revolutionary opportunities now presented by Semantic Web technologies liberate catalogers from their historically analog-based static world, re-conceptualize it, and transform it into a world of high dimensionality and fluidity. By presenting illustrative examples of innovative metadata creation and manipulation, such as non-MARC name authority records, we seek to contribute to the libraries' mission with innovative projects that enable discovery, development, communication, learning, and creativity, and hold promise to exceed users' expectations.
    Type
    a
  7. Rotenberg, E.; Kushmerick, A.: ¬The author challenge : identification of self in the scholarly literature (2011) 0.00 
    0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 1332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=1332,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1332, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1332)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Considering the expansion of research output across the globe, along with the growing demand for quantitative tracking of research outcomes by government authorities and research institutions, the challenges of author identity are increasing. In recent years, a number of initiatives to help solve the author "name game" have been launched from all areas of the scholarly information market space. This article introduces the various author identification tools and services Thomson Reuters provides, including Distinct Author Sets and ResearcherID-which reflect a combination of automated clustering and author participation-as well as the use of other data types, such as grants and patents, to expand the universe of author identification. Industry-wide initiatives such as the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) are also described. Future author-related developments in ResearcherID and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge are also included.
    Type
    a
  8. Niu, J.: Evolving landscape in name authority control (2013) 0.00 
    0.0025028288 = product of:
  0.0075084865 = sum of:
    0.0075084865 = weight(_text_:a in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075084865 = score(doc=1901,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This article presents a conceptual framework for library name authority control, including methods for disambiguating agents that share the same name and for collocating works of agents who use multiple names. It then discusses the identifier solutions tried or proposed in the library community for name authority control, analyzes the various identity management systems emerging outside of the library community, and envisions future trends in name authority control.
    Type
    a
  9. Meßmer, G.; Müller, M.: Standards in der Formalerschließung gedruckter und elektronischer Ressourcen (2015) 0.00 
    0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 1143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=1143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1143)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  10. Kimura, M.: ¬A comparison of recorded authority data elements and the RDA Framework in Chinese character cultures (2015) 0.00 
    0.0021899752 = product of:
  0.0065699257 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 2619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=2619,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 2619, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2619)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a
  11. Tillett, B.B.: Complementarity of perspectives for resource descriptions (2015) 0.00 
    0.0019158293 = product of:
  0.005747488 = sum of:
    0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005747488 = score(doc=2288,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic data is used to describe resources held in the collections of libraries, archives and museums. That data is mostly available on the Web today and mostly as linked data. Also on the Web are the controlled vocabulary systems of name authority files, like the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), classification systems, and subject terms. These systems offer their own linked data to potentially help users find the information they want - whether at their local library or anywhere in the world that is willing to make their resources available. We have found it beneficial to merge authority data for names on a global level, as the entities are relatively clear. That is not true for subject concepts and terminology that have categorisation systems developed according to varying principles and schemes and are in multiple languages. Rather than requiring everyone in the world to use the same categorisation/classification system in the same language, we know that the Web offers us the opportunity to add descriptors assigned around the world using multiple systems from multiple perspectives to identify our resources. Those descriptors add value to refine searches, help users worldwide and share globally what each library does locally.
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
    Type
    a
  12. Dobreski, B.: Authority and universalism : conventional values in descriptive catalog codes (2017) 0.00 
    0.0017697671 = product of:
  0.0053093014 = sum of:
    0.0053093014 = weight(_text_:a in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0053093014 = score(doc=3876,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely
    Type
    a
  13. Faßnacht, M.: "Druckt die GND Nummer in der Publikation ab!" : Vereinfachung der Normdatenverwendung in Bibliotheken und Datenbanken (2014) 0.00 
    0.0013273255 = product of:
  0.0039819763 = sum of:
    0.0039819763 = weight(_text_:a in 2393) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0039819763 = score(doc=2393,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2393, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2393)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes