Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.01 
    0.012628233 = product of:
  0.058931753 = sum of:
    0.033398256 = weight(_text_:wide in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033398256 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2543695 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.018119143 = weight(_text_:web in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018119143 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18735787 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.007414355 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007414355 = score(doc=1271,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14252704 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
    The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.
  2. Diedrichs, R.: Kooperative Katalogisierung und Nachweis von Internetquellen (2006) 0.01 
    0.0073218425 = product of:
  0.10250579 = sum of:
    0.10250579 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10250579 = score(doc=3112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.7314765 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Form
    Elektronische Dokumente
  3. Geißelmann, F.: ¬The cataloging of electronic publications : ways out of heterogenity (2000) 0.01 
    0.006275865 = product of:
  0.087862104 = sum of:
    0.087862104 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 5401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.087862104 = score(doc=5401,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.6269798 = fieldWeight in 5401, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5401)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Form
    Elektronische Dokumente
  4. Beacom, M.: Crossing a digital divide : AACR2 and unaddressed problems of networked ressources (2000) 0.01 
    0.006275865 = product of:
  0.087862104 = sum of:
    0.087862104 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 6805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.087862104 = score(doc=6805,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.6269798 = fieldWeight in 6805, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6805)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Form
    Elektronische Dokumente
  5. Huthwaite, A.: AACR2 and its place in the digital world : near-term solutions and long-term direction (2000) 0.01 
    0.0052298876 = product of:
  0.07321842 = sum of:
    0.07321842 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 6806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07321842 = score(doc=6806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5224832 = fieldWeight in 6806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6806)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Form
    Elektronische Dokumente
  6. O'Neill, E.T.: OCLC's experience identifying and using works (2004) 0.00 
    0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?
  7. Schmidgall, K.: ¬Die FRBR aus der Sicht eines Literaturarchivs : Nostalgie oder Zukunftskonzept? (2004) 0.00 
    0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2483)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?
  8. Tillett, B.: What is FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records)? (2004) 0.00 
    0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2484, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2484)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?
  9. Hengel-Dittrich, C.: FRANAR: Functional Requirements for Authority Records (2004) 0.00 
    0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2485)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?
  10. Boeuf, P. le: "Zwischen Traum und Wirklichkeit" : die FRBR-Theorisierung und einige FRBR-Anwendungen (2004) 0.00 
    0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2486)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?
  11. Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008) 0.00 
    0.0028079567 = product of:
  0.019655695 = sum of:
    0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013948122 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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.
  12. Leresche, F.: Libraries and archives : sharing standards to facilitate access to cultural heritage (2008) 0.00 
    0.0025691409 = product of:
  0.017983986 = sum of:
    0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013948122 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    This presentation shares the French experience of collaboration between archivists and librarians, led by working groups with the Association française de normalisation (AFNOR). With the arrival of the Web, the various heritage institutions are increasingly aware of their areas of commonality and the need for interoperability between their catalogues. This is particularly true for archives and libraries, which have developed standards for meeting their specific needs Regarding document description, but which are now seeking to establish a dialogue for defining a coherent set of standards to which professionals in both communities can refer. After discussing the characteristics of the collections held respectively in archives and libraries, this presentation will draw a portrait of the standards established by the two professional communities in the following areas: - description of documents - access points in descriptions and authority records - description of functions - identification of conservation institutions and collections It is concluded from this study that the standards developed by libraries on the one hand and by archives on the other are most often complementary and that each professional community is being driven to use the standards developed by the other, or would at least profit from doing so. A dialogue between the two professions is seen today as a necessity for fostering the compatibility and interoperability of standards and documentary tools. Despite this recognition of the need for collaboration, the development of standards is still largely a compartmentalized process, and the fact that normative work is conducted within professional associations is a contributing factor. The French experience shows, however, that it is possible to create working groups where archivists and librarians unite and develop a comprehensive view of the standards and initiatives conducted by each, with the goal of articulating them as best they can for the purpose of interoperability, yet respecting the specific requirements of each.
    Content
    Beitrag während: World library and information congress: 74th IFLA general conference and council, 10-14 August 2008, Québec, Canada.
  13. Heuvelmann, R.: FRBR-Strukturierung von MAB-Daten, oder : Wieviel MAB passt in FRBR? (2005) 0.00 
    0.0019709074 = product of:
  0.027592704 = sum of:
    0.027592704 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027592704 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.22680065 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    Die Expertengruppe MAB-Ausschuss (seit 2005: Expertengruppe Datenformate) hat sich im Verlauf des Jahres 2004 mit den FRBR und ihren Bezügen zum MABFormat befasst. Es wurde eine Tabelle FRBR => MAB erstellt (veröffentlicht unter http://www.ddb.de/professionell/pdf/frbr_mab.pdf), wichtige Ergebnisse wurden im Artikel "Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken und die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records : Oder: Wieviel FRBR verträgt MAB?" im "Bibliotheksdienst" 39 (2005), Heft 10 zusammengefasst. Ergänzend dazu wurde bei der Arbeitsstelle Datenformate Der Deutschen Bibliothek versucht, MAB-Daten zu "frbrisieren", d. h. einzelne MAB-Datensätze in die vier Entitäten der Gruppe 1 (work / expression / manifestation / item) zu differenzieren. Ziel war nicht, einen fertigen OPAC-Baustein für die Indexierung, Benutzerführung oder Präsentation zu erstellen. Ziel war vielmehr, anhand von konkreten, in MAB strukturierten Daten die Schichten sichtbar zu machen. Ausgewählt für diesen Zweck wurde BISMAS, das "Bibliographische Informations-System zur Maschinellen Ausgabe und Suche" des BIS Oldenburg (www.bismas.de). In BISMAS ist es mit relativ geringem Aufwand möglich, die Präsentation eines Satzes - basierend auf der intern vorliegenden Datensatzstruktur, z.B. MAB - frei zu definieren. Die Gestaltung der Indices und der Ausgabeformate erfolgt in BISMAS mit Hilfe der Programmiersprache LM. Die Ergebnisse sollen hier anhand von Beispielen dargestellt werden.
  14. Gonzalez, L.: What is FRBR? (2005) 0.00 
    0.0012845704 = product of:
  0.008991993 = sum of:
    0.006974061 = weight(_text_:web in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006974061 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
    0.0020179318 = weight(_text_:information in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020179318 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.03879095 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Content
    National FRBR experiments The larger the bibliographic database, the greater the effect of "FRBR-like" design in reducing the appearance of duplicate records. LC, RLG, and OCLC, all influenced by FRBR, are experimenting with the redesign of their databases. LC's Network Development and MARC Standards Office has posted at its web site the results of some of its investigations into FRBR and MARC, including possible display options for bibliographic information. The design of RLG's public catalog, RedLightGreen, has been described as "FRBR-ish" by Merrilee Proffitt, RLG's program officer. If you try a search for a prolific author or much-published title in RedLightGreen, you'll probably find that the display of search results is much different than what you would expect. OCLC Research has developed a prototype "frbrized" database for fiction, OCLC FictionFinder. Try a title search for a classic title like Romeo and Juliet and observe that OCLC includes, in the initial display of results (described as "works"), a graphic indicator (stars, ranging from one to five). These show in rough terms how many libraries own the work-Romeo and Juliet clearly gets a five. Indicators like this are something resource sharing staff can consider an "ILL quality rating." If you're intrigued by FRBR's possibilities and what they could mean to resource sharing workflow, start talking. Now is the time to connect with colleagues, your local and/or consortial system vendor, RLG, OCLC, and your professional organizations. Have input into how systems develop in the FRBR world."
  15. O'Neill, E.T.: ¬The FRBRization of Humphry Clinker : a case study in the application of IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (2002) 0.00 
    6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=2433,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    The goal of OCLC's FRBR projects is to examine issues associated with the conversion of a set of bibliographic records to conform to FRBR requirements (a process referred to as "FRBRization"). The goals of this FRBR project were to: - examine issues associated with creating an entity-relationship model for (i.e., "FRBRizing") a non-trivial work - better understand the relationship between the bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic record is sufficient to reliably identify the FRBR entities - to develop a data set that could be used to evaluate FRBRization algorithms. Using an exemplary work as a case study, lead scientist Ed O'Neill sought to: - better understand the relationship between bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic records is sufficient to reliably identify FRBR entities.
  16. Mimno, D.; Crane, G.; Jones, A.: Hierarchical catalog records : implementing a FRBR catalog (2005) 0.00 
    5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=1183,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) lay the foundation for a new generation of cataloging systems that recognize the difference between a particular work (e.g., Moby Dick), diverse expressions of that work (e.g., translations into German, Japanese and other languages), different versions of the same basic text (e.g., the Modern Library Classics vs. Penguin editions), and particular items (a copy of Moby Dick on the shelf). Much work has gone into finding ways to infer FRBR relationships between existing catalog records and modifying catalog interfaces to display those relationships. Relatively little work, however, has gone into exploring the creation of catalog records that are inherently based on the FRBR hierarchy of works, expressions, manifestations, and items. The Perseus Digital Library has created a new catalog that implements such a system for a small collection that includes many works with multiple versions. We have used this catalog to explore some of the implications of hierarchical catalog records for searching and browsing. Current online library catalog interfaces present many problems for searching. One commonly cited failure is the inability to find and collocate all versions of a distinct intellectual work that exist in a collection and the inability to take into account known variations in titles and personal names (Yee 2005). The IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) attempts to address some of these failings by introducing the concept of multiple interrelated bibliographic entities (IFLA 1998). In particular, relationships between abstract intellectual works and the various published instances of those works are divided into a four-level hierarchy of works (such as the Aeneid), expressions (Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), manifestations (a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), and items (my copy of a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid). In this formulation, each level in the hierarchy "inherits" information from the preceding level. Much of the work on FRBRized catalogs so far has focused on organizing existing records that describe individual physical books. Relatively little work has gone into rethinking what information should be in catalog records, or how the records should relate to each other. It is clear, however, that a more "native" FRBR catalog would include separate records for works, expressions, manifestations, and items. In this way, all information about a work would be centralized in one record. Records for subsequent expressions of that work would add only the information specific to each expression: Samuel Butler's translation of the Iliad does not need to repeat the fact that the work was written by Homer. This approach has certain inherent advantages for collections with many versions of the same works: new publications can be cataloged more quickly, and records can be stored and updated more efficiently.
  17. 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) 0.00 
    5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=3225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.
  18. Coyle, K.; Hillmann, D.: Resource Description and Access (RDA) : cataloging rules for the 20th century (2007) 0.00 
    5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=2525,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    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.
  19. Escolano Rodríguez, E.; McGarry, D.: Consolidated ISBD : a step forward (2007) 0.00 
    4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 145 - Cataloguing
  20. Danskin, A.: "Tomorrow never knows" : the end of cataloguing? (2006) 0.00 
    2.8827597E-4 = product of:
  0.0040358636 = sum of:
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges confronting cataloguing as we have known it and to consider how these challenges might be confronted and whether they may be surmounted. The main focus of this paper is on cataloguing rather than the catalogue, although it is obviously difficult to separate one from the other. First of all, what does "cataloguing" mean? For the purposes of this paper I have adopted a broad definition incorporating the following activities: - description of the resource sufficient for purposes of identification and for differentiation from other similar resources - identification and control of access points - identification and control of relationships with other resources - subject analysis of the resource - assignment of subject indexing terms - assignment of classification numbers The challenges facing cataloguing are all too well known. In no particular order, the major challenges are: - Increasing inputs - New kinds of information resource - Competition from other mediation services. - Perception that cataloguing is high cost and offers poor value for money. - Fiscal constraints - Declining workforce This is a daunting list. We have a choice, we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, "Turn off our minds, relax and float down stream", until we retire, take voluntary redundancy, or retrain as marketing consultants; or, we can choose to confront these challenges and consider what they really mean for cataloguing.

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes