Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Heuvelmann, R.: FRBR-Strukturierung von MAB-Daten, oder : Wieviel MAB passt in FRBR? (2005) 0.04 
    0.043108504 = product of:
  0.16165689 = sum of:
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=466,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.004929992 = weight(_text_:in in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004929992 = score(doc=466,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=466,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.041278496 = weight(_text_:einzelne in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041278496 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12695427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.3251446 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.016918836 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016918836 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08127756 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20816123 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.041278496 = weight(_text_:einzelne in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041278496 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12695427 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.3251446 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.885746 = idf(docFreq=333, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.016918836 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016918836 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08127756 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20816123 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
    0.016918836 = weight(_text_:bibliotheken in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016918836 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08127756 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20816123 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.768121 = idf(docFreq=2775, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
  0.26666668 = coord(8/30)
    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.
  2. Horny, S.: Katalogisierung mehrbändiger begrenzter Werke (2006) 0.01 
    0.011948587 = product of:
  0.0896144 = sum of:
    0.020276587 = weight(_text_:und in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020276587 = score(doc=674,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.42413816 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
    0.047069237 = weight(_text_:einzelnen in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047069237 = score(doc=674,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1139978 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.285069 = idf(docFreq=608, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.412896 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.285069 = idf(docFreq=608, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
    0.020276587 = weight(_text_:und in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020276587 = score(doc=674,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.42413816 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
    0.001991979 = weight(_text_:s in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.001991979 = score(doc=674,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Content
    Inhalt: 1 Gesamtaufnahme 2 Bände (F-/f-Satz) 2.1 f-Sätze 2.2 F-Sätze 3 Mehrfach-Verknüpfungen 3.1 Mehrbändiges begrenztes Werk innerhalb einer Schriftenreihe 3.2 Mehrbändiges begrenztes Werk innerhalb eines anderen mehrbändigen begrenzten Werkes 3.3 Bandliste 4 Abteilungen und übergeordnete Bandangaben 4.1 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke mit Abteilungen und durchlaufender Zählung 4.1.1 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke mit Abteilungen und durchlaufender Zählung für die Einzelbände (RAK-WB § 167,2) 4.1.2 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke mit Abteilungen und durchlaufender Zählung für die Einzelbände bezogen auf das Gesamtwerk sowie durchlaufender Zählung innerhalb der Abteilung (RAK-WB § 167,2) 4.2 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke ohne eigene durchlaufende Zählung mit Abteilungen 4.3 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke mit über- und untergeordneten Bandangaben 4.3.1 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke mit über- und untergeordneten Bandzählungen, zu deren einzelnen Gliederungsstufen keine eigenen Angaben gehören 4.3.2 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke mit über- und untergeordneten Bandzählungen, zu deren einzelnen Gliederungsstufen eigene Angaben gehören 4.3.3 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke mit Abteilungen und über- und untergeordneten Bandangaben (Mischform) 4.3.3.1 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke mit durchlaufender Zählung für die Einzelbände und mit Abteilungen (Fall 1) 4.3.3.2 Mehrbändige begrenzte Werke ohne eigene durchlaufende Zählung mit Abteilungen (Fall 2) 4.3.4 Sonderfall bei mehrbändigen begrenzten Werken mit über- und untergeordneten Bandangaben 4.3.5 Sonderfall bei mehrbändigen begrenzten Werken mit Abteilungen und durchlaufender Zählung für die Einzelbände 4.4 Bandlisten mit Abteilungen 5 Besonderheiten bei Korrekturen von mehrbändigen begrenzten Werken 5.1 Wechsel von einem mehrbändigen begrenzten Werk zu einem fortlaufenden Sammelwerk 5.2 Wechsel von einem fortlaufenden Sammelwerk zu einem mehrbändigen begrenzten Werk 5.3 Wechsel von einem Einzelwerk zu einem mehrbändigen begrenzten Werk
    Pages
    31 S
  3. Erklärung zu den internationalen Katalogisierungsprinzipien (2009) 0.01 
    0.009136435 = product of:
  0.06852326 = sum of:
    0.018509908 = weight(_text_:und in 3286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018509908 = score(doc=3286,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.3871834 = fieldWeight in 3286, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3286)
    0.004929992 = weight(_text_:in in 3286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004929992 = score(doc=3286,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 3286, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3286)
    0.018509908 = weight(_text_:und in 3286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018509908 = score(doc=3286,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.3871834 = fieldWeight in 3286, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3286)
    0.02657345 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 3286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02657345 = score(doc=3286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10186133 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.26087868 = fieldWeight in 3286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3286)
  0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
    Abstract
    Das "Statement of Principles" - allgemein bekannt als "Paris Principles" - wurde 1961 von der International Conference on Cataloguing Principles verabschiedet. Sein Ziel, als Basis für die internationale Standardisierung in der Katalogisierung zu dienen, ist sicherlich erreicht worden: Die meisten Katalogisierungsregelwerke, die in der Folgezeit weltweit entwickelt wurden, folgten den Prinzipien ganz oder wenigstens in hohem Maß. Mehr als vierzig Jahre später ist das Bedürfnis nach gemeinsamen internationalen Katalogisierungsregeln gewachsen, weil Katalogisierer und Benutzer weltweit OPACs (Online Public Access Catalogues = Online-Benutzerkataloge) nutzen. An der Schwelle des 21. Jahrhunderts hat die IFLA einen Vorstoß unternommen, neue Prinzipien zu erarbeiten, die auf Online-Bibliothekskataloge und auch darüber hinaus anwendbar sind. Das oberste Prinzip ist der Komfort des Katalognutzers. Diese Erklärung ersetzt die "Paris Principles" und weitet den Geltungsbereich von rein textlichen Werken auf alle Materialarten aus und von der Bestimmung und Form einer Eintragung auf alle Aspekte von bibliografischen Daten und Normdaten, die in Bibliothekskatalogen genutzt werden. Sie umfasst nicht nur Prinzipien und Ziele (d. h. Funktionen des Katalogs), sondern auch Regelungen, die international in Katalogisierungsregelwerken enthalten sein sollten, und gibt Anleitung für Suchfunktionen. Die Prinzipien bauen auf den großen Katalogtraditionen der Welt sowie auf dem konzeptionellen Modell der Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) der IFLA auf.
    Content
    Die Erklärung beinhaltet: 1. Geltungsbereich 2. Allgemeine Prinzipien 3. Entitäten, Merkmale und Beziehungen 4. Aufgaben und Funktionen des Katalogs 5. Bibliografische Beschreibung 6. Sucheinstiege 7. Grundlagen für Suchfunktionen
    Footnote
    Deutsche Übersetzung von: Statement of International Cataloguing Principles.
  4. Funktionelle Anforderungen an bibliografische Datensätze : Abschlussbericht der IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (2006) 0.01 
    0.007656029 = product of:
  0.07656029 = sum of:
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
    0.0531469 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0531469 = score(doc=2263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10186133 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.52175736 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Footnote
    Als pdf unter: http://www.d-nb.de/standardisierung/pdf/frbr_deutsch.pdf und http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr-deutsch.pdf.
    Imprint
    Leipzig : Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
  5. Eversberg, B.: Zur Zukunft der Katalogisierung : ... jenseits RAK und AACR (2004) 0.01 
    0.005325813 = product of:
  0.05325813 = sum of:
    0.023178069 = weight(_text_:und in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023178069 = score(doc=3632,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.4848303 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
    0.006901989 = weight(_text_:in in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006901989 = score(doc=3632,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
    0.023178069 = weight(_text_:und in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023178069 = score(doc=3632,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.4848303 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    "Katalogisierung" klingt in manchen Ohren altmodisch. Man redet heute von "Metadaten"! Gemeint ist aber nichts völlig anderes. Es gibt nur viele neue Formen, Praktiken und Nutzungen, während sich früher Katalogdaten fast nur in Katalogen und Bibliographien befanden. "Metadaten" ist nur ein neuer Oberbegriff, aber in einer Katalogdatenbank haben wir längst mehr und andersartige Datenelemente und Funktionen als in Zettelkatalogen. Es ist notwendig, weiter auszugreifen als es die klassischen Regelwerke, RAK und AACR, getan haben, und deren hergebrachte Konzepte zu überdenken.
    Footnote
    Präsentation zum Vortrag "Zur Zukunft der Katalogisierung" während des Österreichischen Bibliothekartages in Linz 22.09.2004, Themenkreis: Google und die Zukunft der bibliothekarischen Erschließung. - Zuletzt aktualisiert: 15.07.2008.
  6. Boeuf, P. le: "Zwischen Traum und Wirklichkeit" : die FRBR-Theorisierung und einige FRBR-Anwendungen (2004) 0.00 
    0.004799315 = product of:
  0.047993146 = sum of:
    0.020941569 = weight(_text_:und in 2486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020941569 = score(doc=2486,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 2486, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2486)
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 2486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=2486,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2486, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2486)
    0.020941569 = weight(_text_:und in 2486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020941569 = score(doc=2486,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 2486, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2486)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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. O'Neill, E.T.: OCLC's experience identifying and using works (2004) 0.00 
    0.003855255 = product of:
  0.03855255 = sum of:
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2459,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=2459,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2459,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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. Schmidgall, K.: ¬Die FRBR aus der Sicht eines Literaturarchivs : Nostalgie oder Zukunftskonzept? (2004) 0.00 
    0.003855255 = product of:
  0.03855255 = sum of:
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2483,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2483, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2483)
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 2483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=2483,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2483, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2483)
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2483,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2483, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2483)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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. Tillett, B.: What is FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records)? (2004) 0.00 
    0.003855255 = product of:
  0.03855255 = sum of:
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2484,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2484, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2484)
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=2484,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2484, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2484)
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2484,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2484, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2484)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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. Hengel-Dittrich, C.: FRANAR: Functional Requirements for Authority Records (2004) 0.00 
    0.003855255 = product of:
  0.03855255 = sum of:
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2485,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2485, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2485)
    0.006110009 = weight(_text_:in in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006110009 = score(doc=2485,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 2485, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2485)
    0.01622127 = weight(_text_:und in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01622127 = score(doc=2485,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 2485, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2485)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    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. Eversberg, B.: Navigare necesse est : oder: Wie knüpft man die richtigen Beziehungen? (2006) 0.00 
    0.0023719508 = product of:
  0.023719508 = sum of:
    0.009365354 = weight(_text_:und in 1948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009365354 = score(doc=1948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 1948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1948)
    0.004988801 = weight(_text_:in in 1948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004988801 = score(doc=1948,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 1948, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1948)
    0.009365354 = weight(_text_:und in 1948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009365354 = score(doc=1948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 1948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1948)
  0.1 = coord(3/30)
    Abstract
    Zu den heute geforderten Funktionen von Katalogsystemen gehört das Navigieren. Auch wer dieses Wort nicht kennt, navigiert täglich, und zwar bei jedem Klick auf einen Hyperlink. Es tut somit not, dem Nutzer Hyperlinks zu präsentieren - damit er zu "Ressourcen" surfen kann, die mit dem vorher gefundenen Dokument irgendwie zusammenhängen. Hyperlinks machen sich nicht von selbst, es muß etwas dahinterstecken, am besten ein Konzept, das die Beziehungen zwischen den Dokumenten in praktikabler, plausibler Weise abbildet. Wer keine oder die falschen Beziehungen hat, den bestraft das Leben - in Katalogen ist das nicht anders.
  12. Diedrichs, R.: Kooperative Katalogisierung und Nachweis von Internetquellen (2006) 0.00 
    0.0021852495 = product of:
  0.03277874 = sum of:
    0.01638937 = weight(_text_:und in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01638937 = score(doc=3112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
    0.01638937 = weight(_text_:und in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01638937 = score(doc=3112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
  13. Eversberg, B.: Was sollen Bibliothekskataloge? (2002) 0.00 
    0.0018730708 = product of:
  0.028096061 = sum of:
    0.014048031 = weight(_text_:und in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014048031 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
    0.014048031 = weight(_text_:und in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014048031 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Sinn von Katalogen und Erschließung im Umfeld der Debatte RAK - AACR, MAB - MARC
  14. Tillett, B.: ¬The FRBR model : Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (2002) 0.00 
    0.0015608924 = product of:
  0.023413386 = sum of:
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
    0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011706693 = score(doc=759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=759)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    Überblick über die Ideen und Ziele des FRBR-Ansatzes
  15. Parent, I.: Serials standards in convergence : ISBD(S) developments (2000) 0.00 
    6.7147816E-4 = product of:
  0.010072172 = sum of:
    0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 5411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052914224 = score(doc=5411,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5411, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5411)
    0.00478075 = weight(_text_:s in 5411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00478075 = score(doc=5411,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 5411, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5411)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Object
    ISBD(S)
  16. 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 
    5.766886E-4 = product of:
  0.008650329 = sum of:
    0.005833246 = weight(_text_:in in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005833246 = score(doc=3225,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
    0.0028170836 = weight(_text_:s in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0028170836 = score(doc=3225,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
    Imprint
    Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Libraries
    Pages
    31 S
  17. Gonzalez, L.: What is FRBR? (2005) 0.00 
    5.101498E-4 = product of:
  0.007652247 = sum of:
    0.005142338 = weight(_text_:in in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005142338 = score(doc=3401,freq=68.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17526478 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          8.246211 = tf(freq=68.0), with freq of:
            68.0 = termFreq=68.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
    0.0025099088 = product of:
      0.007529726 = sum of:
        0.007529726 = weight(_text_:l in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007529726 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021569785 = queryNorm
            0.08782824 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    Abstract
    This brief and gentle introduction to some key concepts laid out in the IFLA-produced Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records paper should be read by any librarian wondering what all the "ferber" fuss is about. Scratch that. It should be read by any librarian period. It's time for us to admit our library catalogs are a mess from a user's perspective, and FRBR can provide at least a partial solution to the problems we face in fixing our systems. Therefore, knowledge of the basic concepts that are already beginning to transform our bibliographic systems should be considered basic, foundational, professional knowledge. So start here, if you must, but then feel free to follow up with the full report.
    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.
    Better navigation FRBR is a way of explaining the bibliographic world, in a library context, to allow for a better arrangement and collocation of records in a bibliographic database and, consequently, better navigation. FRBR could make possible a catalog that would group all the bibliographic records for all the filmed versions of Romeo and Juliet in sets organized by the language of the production, for example. Within each language's set would be separate subsets for those on DVD and those on videocassette. This would eliminate the screen after screen of displays of bibliographic headings, each of which a user has to investigate to determine if the record is really for the resource he or she needs ("Where's the movie version on DVD?") The larger the size of the database, the more such organization promises cleaner, more navigable displays to searchers. This is why FRBR is especially important in resource sharing environments-where databases seem to grow exponentially. From items to works One of the bases for that organization is FRBR's conception of bibliographic resources, which fall into four "entities": item, manifestation, expression, and work. An "item" is familiar to us: the object that sits on a shelf, which gets checked out, damaged, repaired, then eventually discarded. In the current era, it may not be physical but instead virtual, like an ebook. The "item," an individual copy, is a single example of a "manifestation," the publication by a certain publisher of a text, or of a sound or video recording. Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf, published in hardback by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in 1999, is one manifestation. Heaney's translation of Beowulf published in paperback by W.W. Norton in 2000 is another. Heaney's Beowulf as it appears in the collection Wizards: Stories of Magic, Mischief and Mayhem (Thunder's Mouth, 2001) is yet another manifestation. Manifestations are generally what catalogers catalog. All of these are manifestations of an "expression," a more abstract and intangible entity. Heaney's translation of Beowulf, independent of who is publishing it and when, is one "expression" of that work. The translation by Barry Tharaud is another.
    What are these two Beowulf translations "expressions" of? I used the term work above, an even more abstract concept in the FRBR model. In this case, the "work" is Beowulf , that ancient intellectual creation or effort that over time has been expressed in multiple ways, each manifested in several different ways itself, with one or more items in each manifestation. This is a pretty gross oversimplification of FRBR, which also details other relationships: among these entities; between these entities and various persons (such as creators, publishers, and owners); and between these entities and their subjects. It also specifies characteristics, or "attributes," of the different types of entities (such as title, physical media, date, availability, and more.). But it should be enough to grasp the possibilities. Now apply it Imagine that you have a patron who needs a copy of Heaney's translation of Beowulf . She doesn't care who published it or when, only that it's Heaney's translation. What if you (or your patron) could place an interlibrary loan call on that expression, instead of looking through multiple bibliographic records (as of March, OCLC's WorldCat had nine regular print editions) for multiple manifestations and then judging which record is the best bet on which to place a request? Combine that with functionality that lets you specify "not Braille, not large print," and it could save you time. Now imagine a patron in want of a copy, any copy, in English, of Romeo and Juliet. Saving staff time means saving money. Whether or not this actually happens depends upon what the library community decides to do with FRBR. It is not a set of cataloging rules or a system design, but it can influence both. Several library system vendors are working with FRBR ideas; VTLS's current integrated library system product Virtua incorporates FRBR concepts in its design. More vendors may follow. How the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules develops the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) to incorporate FRBR will necessarily be a strong determinant of how records work in a "FRBR-ized" bibliographic database.
    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."
  18. Mimno, D.; Crane, G.; Jones, A.: Hierarchical catalog records : implementing a FRBR catalog (2005) 0.00 
    4.07709E-4 = product of:
  0.006115635 = sum of:
    0.004988801 = weight(_text_:in in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004988801 = score(doc=1183,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
    0.0011268335 = weight(_text_:s in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0011268335 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
    Source
    D-Lib magazine. 11(2005) no.10, x S
  19. Coyle, K.; Hillmann, D.: Resource Description and Access (RDA) : cataloging rules for the 20th century (2007) 0.00 
    3.8787074E-4 = product of:
  0.0058180606 = sum of:
    0.004409519 = weight(_text_:in in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004409519 = score(doc=2525,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
    0.0014085418 = weight(_text_:s in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0014085418 = score(doc=2525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
    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.
    Source
    D-Lib magazine. 13(2007) nos.1/2, x S
  20. Mapping ISBD elements to FRBR entity attributes and relationships (2004) 0.00 
    2.9396795E-4 = product of:
  0.008819038 = sum of:
    0.008819038 = weight(_text_:in in 2370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008819038 = score(doc=2370,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021569785 = queryNorm
        0.30057663 = fieldWeight in 2370, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2370)
  0.033333335 = coord(1/30)
    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.

Authors

Languages

  • e 19
  • d 11
  • a 1

Types

Themes