Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Buttò, S.: RDA: analyses, considerations and activities by the Central Institute for the Union Catalogue of Italian Libraries and Bibliographic Information (ICCU) (2016) 0.01
    0.012625352 = product of:
      0.025250703 = sum of:
        0.025250703 = product of:
          0.050501406 = sum of:
            0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050501406 = score(doc=2958,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Language
    i
    Location
    I
  2. Koster, L.: Persistent identifiers for heritage objects (2020) 0.01
    0.012625352 = product of:
      0.025250703 = sum of:
        0.025250703 = product of:
          0.050501406 = sum of:
            0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050501406 = score(doc=5718,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.
  3. Valacchi, F.: Things in the World : the integration process of archival descriptions in intercultural systems (2016) 0.01
    0.012498461 = product of:
      0.024996921 = sum of:
        0.024996921 = product of:
          0.049993843 = sum of:
            0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049993843 = score(doc=2957,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2957, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2957)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Language
    i
  4. Petrucciani, A.: RDA: a critical analysis based on cataloguing theory and practice (2016) 0.01
    0.010712966 = product of:
      0.021425933 = sum of:
        0.021425933 = product of:
          0.042851865 = sum of:
            0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 2950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042851865 = score(doc=2950,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2950, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2950)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Language
    i
  5. Belpassi, E.: ¬The application software RIMMF : RDA thinking in action (2016) 0.01
    0.010712966 = product of:
      0.021425933 = sum of:
        0.021425933 = product of:
          0.042851865 = sum of:
            0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042851865 = score(doc=2959,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Language
    i
  6. Delsey, T.: ¬The Making of RDA (2016) 0.01
    0.009234612 = product of:
      0.018469224 = sum of:
        0.018469224 = product of:
          0.036938448 = sum of:
            0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.036938448 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17. 5.2016 19:22:40
  7. Galeffi, A.; Sardo, A.L.: Cataloguing, a necessary evil : critical aspects of RDA (2016) 0.01
    0.008927471 = product of:
      0.017854942 = sum of:
        0.017854942 = product of:
          0.035709884 = sum of:
            0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035709884 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Language
    i
  8. Edmunds, J.: Zombrary apocalypse!? : RDA, LRM, and the death of cataloging (2017) 0.01
    0.0071419775 = product of:
      0.014283955 = sum of:
        0.014283955 = product of:
          0.02856791 = sum of:
            0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02856791 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A brochure on RDA issued in 2010 includes the statements that "RDA goes beyond earlier cataloguing codes in that it provides guidelines on cataloguing digital resources and a stronger emphasis on helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want. RDA also supports clustering of bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators. This important new feature makes users more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats - an exciting development." Setting aside the fact that the author(s) of these statements and I differ on the definition of exciting, their claims are, at best, dubious. There is no evidence-empirical or anecdotal-that bibliographic records created using RDA are any better than records created using AACR2 (or AACR, for that matter) in "helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want." The claim is especially unfounded in the context of the current discovery ecosystem, in which users are perfectly capable of finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining information with absolutely no assistance from libraries or the bibliographic data libraries create.