Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010153829 = product of:
  0.020307658 = sum of:
    0.020307658 = product of:
      0.040615316 = sum of:
        0.040615316 = weight(_text_:g in 2370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040615316 = score(doc=2370,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = 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.

0.010153829 = product of:
  0.020307658 = sum of:
    0.020307658 = product of:
      0.040615316 = sum of:
        0.040615316 = weight(_text_:g in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040615316 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = 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)

0.008123063 = product of:
  0.016246125 = sum of:
    0.016246125 = product of:
      0.03249225 = sum of:
        0.03249225 = weight(_text_:g in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03249225 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19574708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = 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)

0.0074793627 = product of:
  0.014958725 = sum of:
    0.014958725 = product of:
      0.0598349 = sum of:
        0.0598349 = weight(_text_:authors in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0598349 = score(doc=2525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.

0.00598349 = product of:
  0.01196698 = sum of:
    0.01196698 = product of:
      0.04786792 = sum of:
        0.04786792 = weight(_text_:authors in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04786792 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23758973 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052116565 = queryNorm
            0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.