Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Mayo, D.; Bowers, K.: ¬The devil's shoehorn : a case study of EAD to ArchivesSpace migration at a large university (2017) 0.08 
    0.0846572 = product of:
  0.112876266 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=3373,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
    0.04272246 = product of:
      0.08544492 = sum of:
        0.08544492 = weight(_text_:project in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08544492 = score(doc=3373,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.40387696 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    A band of archivists and IT professionals at Harvard took on a project to convert nearly two million descriptions of archival collection components from marked-up text into the ArchivesSpace archival metadata management system. Starting in the mid-1990s, Harvard was an alpha implementer of EAD, an SGML (later XML) text markup language for electronic inventories, indexes, and finding aids that archivists use to wend their way through the sometimes quirky filing systems that bureaucracies establish for their records or the utter chaos in which some individuals keep their personal archives. These pathfinder documents, designed to cope with messy reality, can themselves be difficult to classify. Portions of them are rigorously structured, while other parts are narrative. Early documents predate the establishment of the standard; many feature idiosyncratic encoding that had been through several machine conversions, while others were freshly encoded and fairly consistent. In this paper, we will cover the practical and technical challenges involved in preparing a large (900MiB) corpus of XML for ingest into an open-source archival information system (ArchivesSpace). This case study will give an overview of the project, discuss problem discovery and problem solving, and address the technical challenges, analysis, solutions, and decisions and provide information on the tools produced and lessons learned. The authors of this piece are Kate Bowers, Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards at the Harvard University Archive, and Dave Mayo, a Digital Library Software Engineer for Harvard's Library and Technology Services. Kate was heavily involved in both metadata analysis and later problem solving, while Dave was the sole full-time developer assigned to the migration project.
  2. Edmunds, J.: Roadmap to nowhere : BIBFLOW, BIBFRAME, and linked data for libraries (2017) 0.05 
    0.04552724 = product of:
  0.09105448 = sum of:
    0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039787523 = score(doc=3523,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
    0.051266953 = product of:
      0.10253391 = sum of:
        0.10253391 = weight(_text_:project in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10253391 = score(doc=3523,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.48465237 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?
  3. Degkwitz, A.: "Next Generation Library Systems (NGLS) in Germany" (ALMA,WMS) (2016) 0.04 
    0.043220416 = product of:
  0.08644083 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=3554,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
    0.055812385 = product of:
      0.11162477 = sum of:
        0.11162477 = weight(_text_:project in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11162477 = score(doc=3554,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.52762264 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Fazit: "But in the end of the day: All the synchronisation procedures, which have been considered, failed or are too sophisticated. The project recommended cataloging in the World Cat, what includes a number of conditions and prerequisites like interfaces, data formats, working procedures etc."
    Object
    CIB Project
  4. Danskin, A.: RDA implementation and application : British Library (2014) 0.04 
    0.04139024 = product of:
  0.08278048 = sum of:
    0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 1562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043315165 = score(doc=1562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 1562, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1562)
    0.039465316 = product of:
      0.07893063 = sum of:
        0.07893063 = weight(_text_:project in 1562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07893063 = score(doc=1562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.37308553 = fieldWeight in 1562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The British Library implemented the new international cataloguing standard RDA in April 2013. The paper describes the reasons for the change, the project organization, the necessary adaptations to the systems and the training programs. Altogether, 227 staff were trained. Productivity levels by now are comparable with the levels for AACR2. However, there was a tendency to spend too much time on authority control.
  5. Delsey, T.: ¬The Making of RDA (2016) 0.04 
    0.036035247 = product of:
  0.072070494 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The author revisits the development of RDA from its inception in 2005 through to its initial release in 2010. The development effort is set in the context of an evolving digital environment that was transforming both the production and dissemination of information resources and the technologies used to create, store, and access data describing those resources. The author examines the interplay between strategic commitments to align RDA with new conceptual models, emerging database structures, and metadata developments in allied communities, on the one hand, and compatibility with AACR2 legacy databases on the other. Aspects of the development effort examined include the structuring of RDA as a resource description language, organizing the new standard as a working tool, and refining guidelines and instructions for recording RDA data.
    Date
    17. 5.2016 19:22:40
  6. Behrens, R.; Aliverti, C.; Schaffner, V.: RDA in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland : a new standard not only for libraries (2016) 0.03 
    0.02628516 = product of:
  0.05257032 = sum of:
    0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022971334 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The library community in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland achieved a common goal at the end of 2015. After more than two years of intensive preparation, the international standard RDA was implemented and the practical work has now started. The article describes the project in terms of the political and organizational situation in the three countries, and points out the objectives which have been achieved as well as the work which is still outstanding. An overview is given of the initial efforts to align special materials with RDA in the German-speaking countries, and the tasks associated with the specific requirements arising from the multilingual nature of Switzerland are described. Furthermore, the article reports on the current strategic developments in the international RDA committees like the RDA Steering Committee (RSC) and the European RDA Interest Group (EURIG).
  7. Edmunds, J.: Zombrary apocalypse!? : RDA, LRM, and the death of cataloging (2017) 0.02 
    0.024889842 = product of:
  0.049779683 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    A brochure on RDA issued in 2010 includes the statements that "RDA goes beyond earlier cataloguing codes in that it provides guidelines on cataloguing digital resources and a stronger emphasis on helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want. RDA also supports clustering of bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators. This important new feature makes users more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats - an exciting development." Setting aside the fact that the author(s) of these statements and I differ on the definition of exciting, their claims are, at best, dubious. There is no evidence-empirical or anecdotal-that bibliographic records created using RDA are any better than records created using AACR2 (or AACR, for that matter) in "helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want." The claim is especially unfounded in the context of the current discovery ecosystem, in which users are perfectly capable of finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining information with absolutely no assistance from libraries or the bibliographic data libraries create.
    Equally fallacious is the statement that support for the "clustering bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators" is an "important new feature" of RDA. AACR2 bibliographic records and the systems housing them can, did, and do show such relationships. Finally, whether users want or care to be made "more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats" is debatable. As an aim, it sounds less like what a user wants and more like what a cataloging librarian thinks a user should want. As Amanda Cossham writes in her recently issued doctoral thesis: "The explicit focus on user needs in the FRBR model, the International Cataloguing Principles, and RDA: Resource Description and Access does not align well with the ways that users use, understand, and experience library catalogues nor with the ways that they understand and experience the wider information environment. User tasks, as constituted in the FRBR model and RDA, are insufficient to meet users' needs." (p. 11, emphasis in the original)
  8. RDA Toolkit (4) : Dezember 2017 (2017) 0.02 
    0.024746098 = product of:
  0.049492195 = sum of:
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
    0.03417797 = product of:
      0.06835594 = sum of:
        0.06835594 = weight(_text_:project in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06835594 = score(doc=4283,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32310158 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Am 12. Dezember 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits erschienen. Dabei gab es, aufgrund des 3R-Projekts (RDA Toolkit Restruction and Redesign Project), keine inhaltlichen Änderungen am RDA-Text. Es wurden ausschließlich die Übersetzungen in finnischer und französischer Sprache, ebenso wie die dazugehörigen Policy statements, aktualisiert. Für den deutschsprachigen Raum wurden in der Übersetzung zwei Beziehungskennzeichnungen geändert: Im Anhang I.2.2 wurde die Änderung von "Sponsor" zu "Träger" wieder rückgängig gemacht. In Anhang K.2.3 wurde "Sponsor" zu "Person als Sponsor" geändert. Außerdem wurde die Übersetzung der Anwendungsrichtlinien (D-A-CH AWR) ins Französische aktualisiert. Dies ist das vorletzte Release vor dem Rollout des neuen Toolkits. Das letzte Release im Januar/Februar 2018 wird die norwegische Übersetzung enthalten. Im Juni 2018 wird das RDA Toolkit ein Relaunch erfahren und mit einer neuen Oberfläche erscheinen. Dieser beinhaltet ein Redesign der Toolkit-Oberfläche und die inhaltliche Anpassung des Standards RDA an das Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM) sowie die künftige stärkere Ausrichtung auf die aktuellen technischen Möglichkeiten. Zunächst wird im Juni 2018 die englische Originalausgabe der RDA in der neuen Form erscheinen. Alle Übersetzungen werden in einer Übergangszeit angepasst. Hierfür wird die alte Version des RDA Toolkit für ein weiteres Jahr zur Verfügung gestellt. Der Stand Dezember 2017 der deutschen Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien bleiben bis zur Anpassung eingefroren. Nähere Information zum Rollout finden Sie unter dem folgenden Link<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/3Rproject/SR3>. [Inetbib vom 13.12.2017]
    "das RDA Steering Committee (RSC) hat eine Verlautbarung<http://www.rda-rsc.org/sites/all/files/RSC-Chair-19.pdf> zum 3R Project und dem Release des neuen RDA Toolkits am 13. Juni 2018 herausgegeben. Außerdem wurde ein neuer Post zum Projekt auf dem RDA Toolkit Blog veröffentlicht "What to Expect from the RDA Toolkit beta site"<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/3Rproject/Beta>. Die deutsche Übersetzung folgt in Kürze auf dem RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/display/RDAINFO/RDA-Info>. Für den deutschsprachigen Raum wird das Thema im Rahmen des Deutschen Bibliothekartags in Berlin im Treffpunkt Standardisierung am Freitag, den 15. Juni aufgegriffen. Die durch das 3R Project entstandenen Anpassungsarbeiten für den DACH-Raum werden im Rahmen eines 3R-DACH-Projekts<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/v5jpBw> in den Fachgruppen des Standardisierungsausschusses durchgeführt. Für die praktische Arbeit ändert sich bis zur Durchführung von Anpassungsschulungen nichts. Basis für die Erschließung bleibt bis dahin die aktuelle Version des RDA Toolkits in deutscher Sprache." [Mail R. Behrens an Inetbib vom 11.06.2018].
  9. Lee, W.-C.: Conflicts of semantic warrants in cataloging practices (2017) 0.02 
    0.0219043 = product of:
  0.0438086 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.
  10. RDA Toolkit (3) : Oktober 2017 (2017) 0.02 
    0.0219043 = product of:
  0.0438086 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=3994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=3994,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Am 10. Oktober 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits erschienen. Aufgrund des 3R-Projekts (RDA Toolkit Restruction and Redesign Project) gab es keine inhaltlichen Änderungen am Regelwerkstext. Es wurden ausschließlich Änderungen an den D-A-CH vorgenommen, die in der Änderungsdokumentation im RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/1hLSBg> aufgelistet sind. Die Gesamtübersicht der D-A-CH nach Kapiteln finden Sie im RDA Toolkit unter dem Reiter "Ressourcen". Wir möchten daran erinnern, dass für die Anwendung von RDA im deutschsprachigen Raum jeweils der deutsche Text maßgeblich ist. Im Juni 2018 wird das RDA Toolkit einen Relaunch erfahren und mit einer neuen Oberfläche erscheinen. Dieser beinhaltet ein Redesign der Toolkit-Oberfläche und die inhaltliche Anpassung des Standards RDA an das Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM) sowie die künftige stärkere Ausrichtung auf die aktuellen technischen Möglichkeiten durch den sogenannten 4-Fold-Path. Zunächst wird im Juni 2018 die englische Originalausgabe der RDA in der neuen Form erscheinen. Alle Übersetzungen werden in einer Übergangszeit angepasst. Hierfür wird die alte Version des RDA Toolkit für ein weiteres Jahr zur Verfügung gestellt. Der Stand Oktober 2017 der deutschen Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien bleiben bis zur Anpassung eingefroren. Im geplanten Dezember-Release des RDA Toolkit wird es keine Änderungen für die deutsche Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien geben. [Inetbib vom 11.10.2017]
  11. Tillett, B.B.: RDA, or, The long journey of the catalog to the digital age (2016) 0.02 
    0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  12. Bianchini, C.; Guerrini, M.: RDA: a content standard to ensure the quality of data : history of a relationship (2016) 0.01 
    0.012924549 = product of:
  0.051698197 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 2948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=2948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2948)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    RDA Resource Description and Access are guidelines for description and access to resources designed for digital environment and released, in its first version, in 2010. RDA is based on FRBR and its derived models, that focus on users' needs and on resources of any kind of content, medium and carrier. The paper discusses relevance of main features of RDA for the future role of libraries in the context of semantic web and metadata creation and exchange. The paper aims to highlight many consequences deriving from RDA being a content standard, and in particular the change from record management to data management, differences among the two functions realized by RDA (to identify and to relate entities) and functions realized by other standard such as MARC21 (to archive data) and ISB (to visualize data) and show how, as all these functions are necessary for the catalog, RDA needs to be integrated by other rules and standard and that these tools allow the fulfilment of the variation principle defined by S.R. Ranganathan.
  13. Morris, S.R.; Wiggins, B.: Implementing RDA at the Library of Congress (2016) 0.01 
    0.012841367 = product of:
  0.05136547 = sum of:
    0.05136547 = weight(_text_:library in 2947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05136547 = score(doc=2947,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 2947, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2947)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The Toolkit designed by the RDA Steering Committee makes Resource Description and Access available on the web, together with other useful documents (workflows, The process of implementation of RDA by Library of Congress, National Agricultural Library, and National Library of Medicine is presented. Each phase of development, test, decision, preparation for implementation of RDA and training about RDA is fully and accurately described and discussed. Benefits from implementation of RDA for the Library of Congress are identified and highlighted: more flexibility in cataloguing decisions, easier international sharing of cataloguing data, clearer linking among related works; closer cooperation with other libraries in the North American community, production of an online learning platform in order to deliver RDA training on a large scale in real time to catalogers.
  14. McGrath, K.; Kules, B.; Fitzpatrick, C.: FRBR and facets provide flexible, work-centric access to items in library collections (2011) 0.01 
    0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=2430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper explores a technique to improve searcher access to library collections by providing a faceted search interface built on a data model based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). The prototype provides a Workcentric view of a moving image collection that is integrated with bibliographic and holdings data. Two sets of facets address important user needs: "what do you want?" and "how/where do you want it?" enabling patrons to narrow, broaden and pivot across facet values instead of limiting them to the tree-structured hierarchy common with existing FRBR applications. The data model illustrates how FRBR is being adapted and applied beyond the traditional library catalog.
  15. Riva, P.; Boeuf, P. le; Zumer, M.: IFLA Library Reference Model : a conceptual model for bibliographic information (2017) 0.01 
    0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=5179,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Definition of a conceptual reference model to provide a framework for the analysis of non-administrative metadata relating to library resources. The resulting model definition was approved by the FRBR Review Group (November 2016), and then made available to the Standing Committees of the Sections on Cataloguing and Subject Analysis & Access, as well as to the ISBD Review Group, for comment in December 2016. The final document was approved by the IFLACommittee on Standards (August 2017).
    Object
    IFLA Library Reference Model
  16. Teal, W.: Alma enumerator : automating repetitive cataloging tasks with Python (2018) 0.01 
    0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 5348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=5348,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 5348, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5348)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In June 2016, the Warburg College library migrated to a new integrated library system, Alma. In the process, we lost the enumeration and chronology data for roughly 79,000 print serial item records. Re-entering all this data by hand seemed an unthinkable task. Fortunately, the information was recorded as free text in each item's description field. By using Python, Alma's API and much trial and error, the Wartburg College library was able to parse the serial item descriptions into enumeration and chronology data that was uploaded back into Alma. This paper discusses the design and feasibility considerations addressed in trying to solve this problem, the complications encountered during development, and the highlights and shortcomings of the collection of Python scripts that became Alma Enumerator.
  17. RDA Toolkit (5 - Juni 2018) (2018) 0.01 
    0.009866329 = product of:
  0.039465316 = sum of:
    0.039465316 = product of:
      0.07893063 = sum of:
        0.07893063 = weight(_text_:project in 3993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07893063 = score(doc=3993,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.37308553 = fieldWeight in 3993, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    "gestern Abend wurde die beta Version des neuen RDA-Toolkits<http://beta.rdatoolkit.org/rda.web/> veröffentlicht. Die Veröffentlichung der Beta-Site ist ein wichtiger Meilenstein innerhalb des RDA Toolkit Restructure and Redesign Project, bedeutet aber nicht den Abschluss des 3R-Projekts. Eine vollständige Beschreibung dessen, was auf der Beta-Site enthalten ist oder nicht, finden Sie im RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/oQNXC>." [Inetbib vom 14.06.2018].
  18. Eversberg, B.: Zum Thema "Migration" - Beispiel USA (2018) 0.01 
    0.00957139 = product of:
  0.03828556 = sum of:
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 4386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=4386,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 4386, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4386)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Wir leiden an einer bedauerlichen Knappheit von Information über die Marktlage und Erfahrungen bei den bibliothekarischen DV-Systemen. Das ist jenseits des "Teiches" anders: Jedes Jahr veröffentlicht der Konsultant Marshall Breeding eine umfangreiche Marktübersicht und hält auf seiner Website eine Menge andere Berichte und interessante Übersichten bereit, z.B. "Migration Reports": https://librarytechnology.org/Library Technology Guides. Da sieht man in Tabellen, z.B. auch für Koha, wieviele Anwender von welchen Systemen insgesamt schon zu Koha gewandert sind, die Gesamtzahl ist 3.547! Zu Alma dagegen nur 1151, zu WMS 464, zu Aleph 1036. ("allegro-C" ist nicht dabei, aber es gab ja auch nie irgendwelche Anwender in USA, außer Goethe-Institute, aber die sind wohl nicht erfaßt.) Breedings neueste Marktübersicht für 2018 ist im Journal "American Libraries" veröffentlicht: https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2018/05/01/library-systems-report-2018/
    Zu den Systemen KOHA und FOLIO gibt es folgende aktuelle Demos, die man mit allen Funktionen ausprobieren kann: KOHA Komplette Demo-Anwendung von Bywater Solutions: https://bywatersolutions.com/koha-demo user = bywater / password = bywater Empfohlen: Cataloguing, mit den MARC-Formularen und Direkt-Datenabruf per Z39 FOLIO (GBV: "The Next-Generation Library System") Demo: https://folio-demo.gbv.de/ user = diku_admin / password = admin Empfohlen: "Inventory" und dann Button "New" zum Katalogisieren Dann "Title Data" für neuen Datensatz. Das ist wohl aber noch in einem Beta-Zustand. Ferner: FOLIO-Präsentation Göttingen April 2018: https://www.zbw-mediatalk.eu/de/2018/05/folio-info-day-a-look-at-the-next-generation-library-system/
  19. Cossham, A.F.: Models of the bibliographic universe (2017) 0.01 
    0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=3817,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.
  20. Forero, D.; Peterson, N.; Hamilton, A.: Building an institutional author search tool (2019) 0.01 
    0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=5441,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Ability to collect time-specific lists of faculty publications has become increasingly important for academic departments. At OHSU publication lists had been retrieved manually by a librarian who conducted literature searches in bibliographic databases. These searches were complicated and time consuming, and the results were large and difficult to assess for accuracy. The OHSU library has built an open web page that allows novices to make very sophisticated institution-specific queries. The tool frees up library staff, provides users with an easy way of retrieving reliable local publication information from PubMed, and gives an opportunity for more sophisticated users to modify the algorithm or dive into the data to better understand nuances from a strong jumping off point.

Authors

Languages

  • e 25
  • d 2
  • f 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 20
  • n 5
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes