Search (94 results, page 2 of 5)

0.0021060861 = product of:
  0.0042121722 = sum of:
    0.0042121722 = product of:
      0.0084243445 = sum of:
        0.0084243445 = weight(_text_:a in 1660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0084243445 = score(doc=1660,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1660, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1660)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

OCLC is investigating how best to implement IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). As part of that work, we have undertaken a series of experiments with algorithms to group existing bibliographic records into works and expressions. Working with both subsets of records and the whole WorldCat database, the algorithm we developed achieved reasonable success identifying all manifestations of a work.

Type

a

0.0021060861 = product of:
  0.0042121722 = sum of:
    0.0042121722 = product of:
      0.0084243445 = sum of:
        0.0084243445 = weight(_text_:a in 1562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0084243445 = score(doc=1562,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1562, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0021060861 = product of:
  0.0042121722 = sum of:
    0.0042121722 = product of:
      0.0084243445 = sum of:
        0.0084243445 = weight(_text_:a in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0084243445 = score(doc=2944,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2944, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This issue of Jlis.it is focused on RDA, Resource Description and Access. In light of increasing international acceptance of this new cataloging content standard, the editors of Jlis.it wish to capture the background of how RDA came to be and the implications of its implementation at this time. This special issue offers a wide overview on the new guidelines from their making to their spreading around the world.

Type

a

0.0021060861 = product of:
  0.0042121722 = sum of:
    0.0042121722 = product of:
      0.0084243445 = sum of:
        0.0084243445 = weight(_text_:a in 2955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0084243445 = score(doc=2955,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 2955, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2955)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A summary of the presence of RDA content in languages other than English in RDA Toolkit, in the RDA Registry, in the RIMMF data editor, and as separate translations is given. Translation policy is explained and the benefits of translation on the content of RDA are noted.

Type

a

0.0020392092 = product of:
  0.0040784185 = sum of:
    0.0040784185 = product of:
      0.008156837 = sum of:
        0.008156837 = weight(_text_:a in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008156837 = score(doc=2881,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The FRBR Review Group worked actively towards a consolidated model starting in 2010, in a series of working meetings held in conjunction with IFLA conferences and at an additional mid-year meeting in April 2012 during which the user task consolidation was first drafted. In 2013 in Singapore, the FRBR Review Group constituted a Consolidation Editorial Group (CEG) to focus on the detailed reassessment of attribute s and relationships, and the drafting of this model document. The CEG (at times with other FRBR Review Group members or invited experts) held five multi-day meetings, as well as discussing progress in detail with the FRBR Review Group as a whole during a working meeting in 2014 in Lyon and another in 2015 in Cape Town.

0.0020106873 = product of:
  0.0040213745 = sum of:
    0.0040213745 = product of:
      0.008042749 = sum of:
        0.008042749 = weight(_text_:a in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008042749 = score(doc=3373,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0020106873 = product of:
  0.0040213745 = sum of:
    0.0040213745 = product of:
      0.008042749 = sum of:
        0.008042749 = weight(_text_:a in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008042749 = score(doc=5718,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.

Type

a

0.0019225847 = product of:
  0.0038451694 = sum of:
    0.0038451694 = product of:
      0.007690339 = sum of:
        0.007690339 = weight(_text_:a in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007690339 = score(doc=3401,freq=80.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              8.944272 = tf(freq=80.0), with freq of:
                80.0 = termFreq=80.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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."

0.0019225847 = product of:
  0.0038451694 = sum of:
    0.0038451694 = product of:
      0.007690339 = sum of:
        0.007690339 = weight(_text_:a in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007690339 = score(doc=3818,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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)
The point of this paper is not to critique RDA (a futile task, since RDA is here to stay), but to make plain that its claim to be a solution to the challenge(s) of bibliographic description in the Internet Age is unfounded, and, secondarily, to explain why such wild claims continue to be advanced and go unchallenged by the rank and file of career catalogers.

Type

a

0.0018615347 = product of:
  0.0037230693 = sum of:
    0.0037230693 = product of:
      0.0074461387 = sum of:
        0.0074461387 = weight(_text_:a in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074461387 = score(doc=2525,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Type

a

0.0018615347 = product of:
  0.0037230693 = sum of:
    0.0037230693 = product of:
      0.0074461387 = sum of:
        0.0074461387 = weight(_text_:a in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074461387 = score(doc=3871,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0018615347 = product of:
  0.0037230693 = sum of:
    0.0037230693 = product of:
      0.0074461387 = sum of:
        0.0074461387 = weight(_text_:a in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074461387 = score(doc=3875,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This presentation applies the principles of phylogenetic classification to the phenomenon of bibliographic relationships in library catalogues. We argue that while the FRBR paradigm supports hierarchical bibliographic relationships between works and their various expressions and manifestations, we need a different paradigm to support associative bibliographic relationships of the kind detected in previous research. Numerous studies have shown the existence and importance of bibliographic relationships that lie outside that hierarchical FRBR model: particularly the importance of bibliographic families. We would like to suggest phylogenetics as a potential means of gaining access to those more elusive and ephemeral relationships. Phylogenetic analysis does not follow the Platonic conception of an abstract work that gives rise to specific instantiations; rather, it tracks relationships of kinship as they evolve over time. We use two examples to suggest ways in which phylogenetic trees could be represented in future library catalogues. The novels of Jane Austen are used to indicate how phylogenetic trees can represent, with greater accuracy, the line of Jane Austen adaptations, ranging from contemporary efforts to complete her unfinished work, through to the more recent efforts to graft horror memes onto the original text. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey provides an example of charting relationships both backwards and forwards in time, across different media and genres. We suggest three possible means of applying phylogenetic s in the future: enhancement of the relationship designators in RDA, crowdsourcing user tags, and extracting relationship trees through big data analysis.

Type

a

0.0018428253 = product of:
  0.0036856506 = sum of:
    0.0036856506 = product of:
      0.0073713013 = sum of:
        0.0073713013 = weight(_text_:a in 2957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073713013 = score(doc=2957,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 2957, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2957)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper conjectures that standard archival descriptions are no longer efficient in order to answer to society needs, mainly in an intercultural perspective. After a brief evaluation of the peculiarities of cultural heritage different domain languages, the specific issues of archival descriptions are discussed, seeking the possible strategies - technological as well as cultural - valid to open to an integration of descriptive languages. A particular focus is proposed on RDA, an approach which shows to be the best candidate to harmonize the separate descriptions typical of archival domain and activating the potential informative integrations with any limitation of information environments and single content quality.

Type

a

0.0018428253 = product of:
  0.0036856506 = sum of:
    0.0036856506 = product of:
      0.0073713013 = sum of:
        0.0073713013 = weight(_text_:a in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073713013 = score(doc=3817,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Content

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Monash University in 2017 Faculty of Information Technology. Vgl.: https://figshare.com/articles/Models_of_the_bibliographic_universe/5216347.

0.0018428253 = product of:
  0.0036856506 = sum of:
    0.0036856506 = product of:
      0.0073713013 = sum of:
        0.0073713013 = weight(_text_:a in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073713013 = score(doc=5179,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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).

0.001823924 = product of:
  0.003647848 = sum of:
    0.003647848 = product of:
      0.007295696 = sum of:
        0.007295696 = weight(_text_:a in 6805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007295696 = score(doc=6805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.001823924 = product of:
  0.003647848 = sum of:
    0.003647848 = product of:
      0.007295696 = sum of:
        0.007295696 = weight(_text_:a in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007295696 = score(doc=304,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RDA: Resource Description and Access is a new cataloguing standard which will replace the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, which has been widely used in libraries since 1981. RDA, like AACR2, is a content standard providing guidance and instruction on how to identify and record attributes or properties of resources which are significant for discovery. However, RDA is also an implementation of the FRBR and FRAD models. The RDA element set and vocabularies are being published on the Open Metadata Registry as linked open data. RDA provides a rich vocabulary for the description of resources and for expressing relationships between them. This paper describes what RDA offers and considers the challenges and potential of linked open data in the broader framework of bibliographic control.

0.001823924 = product of:
  0.003647848 = sum of:
    0.003647848 = product of:
      0.007295696 = sum of:
        0.007295696 = weight(_text_:a in 2948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007295696 = score(doc=2948,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2948, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2948)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.001823924 = product of:
  0.003647848 = sum of:
    0.003647848 = product of:
      0.007295696 = sum of:
        0.007295696 = weight(_text_:a in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007295696 = score(doc=2954,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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).

Location

A

Type

a

0.001823924 = product of:
  0.003647848 = sum of:
    0.003647848 = product of:
      0.007295696 = sum of:
        0.007295696 = weight(_text_:a in 2956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007295696 = score(doc=2956,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2956, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses the progress that has been made to internationalize the management and development of RDA: Resource Description and Access. RDA has been designed for an international environment, and is used in a number of countries worldwide. The paper describes the impact that international adoption of RDA had on the arrangements for its governance, including a new structure for ensuring international participation. It discusses the progress that has been made to improve wider input into the processes for its development, including working groups, liaisons with related standards organizations, and cataloguing hackathons. The paper is based on desk research of published resources, including websites, blogs, and conference presentations. The paper concludes that the intention to internationalize RDA is serious and has made a good use of its opportunities, although threats to its success remain.

Type

a