Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Mapping ISBD elements to FRBR entity attributes and relationships (2004) 0.01 
    0.009833493 = product of:
  0.019666987 = sum of:
    0.019666987 = product of:
      0.039333973 = sum of:
        0.039333973 = weight(_text_:g in 2370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039333973 = score(doc=2370,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1895716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05047238 = queryNorm
            0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 2370, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Background The ISBD Review Group has been assessing the feasibility of aligning the terminology used in the texts of the International Standard Bibliographic Descriptions (ISBDs) with that used in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). However, the group has encountered difficulties in trying to achieve that alignment, owing in large part to the fact that the terms used in FRBR were defined in the context of an entityrelationship model conceived at a higher level of abstraction than the specifications for the ISBDs. While the entities defined in the FRBR model are clearly related to the elements forming an ISBD description, they are not necessarily congruent in all respects and the relationships are too complex to be conveyed through a simple substitution of terminology. Purpose and scope The table that follows is designed to clarify the relationship between the ISBDs and the FRBR model by mapping each of the elements specified in the ISBDs to its corresponding entity attribute or relationship as defined in the FRBR model. The mapping covers all elements specified in the outlines in the latest approved editions of the ISBDs as of July 2004. The elements analyzed comprise those listed in the outline of the ISBD(G) for areas 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, as weIl as elements specified for area 3 (the material or type of resource specific area) in the current editions of ISBD(CM), ISBD(CR), ISBD(ER), and ISBD(PM). The elements analyzed in area 7 (the note area) cover specific types of notes identified in the individual ISBDs.
  2. Byrd, J.; Charbonneau, G.; Charbonneau, M.; Courtney, A.; Johnson, E.; Leonard, K.; Morrison, A.; Mudge, S.; O'Bryan, A.; Opasik, S.; Riley, J.; Turchyn, S.: ¬A white paper on the future of cataloging at Indiana University (2006) 0.01 
    0.009833493 = product of:
  0.019666987 = sum of:
    0.019666987 = product of:
      0.039333973 = sum of:
        0.039333973 = weight(_text_:g in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039333973 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1895716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05047238 = queryNorm
            0.20748875 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  3. Mimno, D.; Crane, G.; Jones, A.: Hierarchical catalog records : implementing a FRBR catalog (2005) 0.01 
    0.007866795 = product of:
  0.01573359 = sum of:
    0.01573359 = product of:
      0.03146718 = sum of:
        0.03146718 = weight(_text_:g in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03146718 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1895716 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05047238 = queryNorm
            0.165991 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  4. Gonzalez, L.: What is FRBR? (2005) 0.01 
    0.0062958905 = product of:
  0.012591781 = sum of:
    0.012591781 = product of:
      0.050367124 = sum of:
        0.050367124 = weight(_text_:author's in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050367124 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.33918214 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05047238 = queryNorm
            0.14849581 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Catalogers, catalog managers, and others in library technical services have become increasingly interested in, worried over, and excited about FRBR (the acronym for Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records). Staff outside of the management of the library's bibliographic database may wonder what the fuss is about (FERBER? FURBUR?), assuming that FRBR is just another addition to the stable of acronyms that catalogers bandy about, a mate or sibling to MARC and AACR2. FRBR, however, has the potential to inspire dramatic changes in library catalogs, and those changes will greatly impact how reference and resource sharing staff and patrons use this core tool. FRBR is a conceptual model for how bibliographic databases might be structured, considering what functions bibliographic records should fulfill in an era when card catalogs are databases with unique possibilities. In some ways FRBR clarifies certain cataloging practices that librarians have been using for over 160 years, since Sir Anthony Panizzi, Keeper of the Printed Books at the British Museum, introduced a set of 91 rules to catalog the print collections of the museum. Sir Anthony believed that patrons should be able to find a particular work by looking in the catalog, that all of an author's works should be retrievable, and that all editions of a work should be assembled together. In other ways, FRBR extends upon past practice to take advantage fully of the capabilities of digital technology to associate bibliographic records in ways a card catalog cannot. FRBR was prepared by a study group assembled by IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) that included staff of the Library of Congress (LC). The final report of the group, "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records," is available online. The group began by asking how an online library catalog might better meet users' needs to find, identify, select, and obtain the resources they want.

Authors