Search (95 results, page 2 of 5)

0.004482775 = product of:
  0.011206937 = sum of:
    0.0054061855 = weight(_text_:a in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054061855 = score(doc=1271,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10111657 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.0058007515 = product of:
      0.011601503 = sum of:
        0.011601503 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011601503 = score(doc=1271,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.14252704 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

0.0043453877 = product of:
  0.010863469 = sum of:
    0.00770594 = weight(_text_:a in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00770594 = score(doc=1425,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
    0.003157529 = product of:
      0.006315058 = sum of:
        0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006315058 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This presentation shares the French experience of collaboration between archivists and librarians, led by working groups with the Association française de normalisation (AFNOR). With the arrival of the Web, the various heritage institutions are increasingly aware of their areas of commonality and the need for interoperability between their catalogues. This is particularly true for archives and libraries, which have developed standards for meeting their specific needs Regarding document description, but which are now seeking to establish a dialogue for defining a coherent set of standards to which professionals in both communities can refer. After discussing the characteristics of the collections held respectively in archives and libraries, this presentation will draw a portrait of the standards established by the two professional communities in the following areas: - description of documents - access points in descriptions and authority records - description of functions - identification of conservation institutions and collections It is concluded from this study that the standards developed by libraries on the one hand and by archives on the other are most often complementary and that each professional community is being driven to use the standards developed by the other, or would at least profit from doing so. A dialogue between the two professions is seen today as a necessity for fostering the compatibility and interoperability of standards and documentary tools. Despite this recognition of the need for collaboration, the development of standards is still largely a compartmentalized process, and the fact that normative work is conducted within professional associations is a contributing factor. The French experience shows, however, that it is possible to create working groups where archivists and librarians unite and develop a comprehensive view of the standards and initiatives conducted by each, with the goal of articulating them as best they can for the purpose of interoperability, yet respecting the specific requirements of each.

Content

Beitrag während: World library and information congress: 74th IFLA general conference and council, 10-14 August 2008, Québec, Canada.

0.0039324276 = product of:
  0.009831069 = sum of:
    0.0066735395 = weight(_text_:a in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066735395 = score(doc=6109,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
    0.003157529 = product of:
      0.006315058 = sum of:
        0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006315058 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper reviews the perceived threats to the future of cataloguing posed by the increasing volume of publications in all media, coupled with a resource base which is declining in real terms. It argues that cataloguing is more rather than less important in such an environment and considers some of the ways in which cataloguing will have to change in order to survive.
The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges confronting cataloguing as we have known it and to consider how these challenges might be confronted and whether they may be surmounted. The main focus of this paper is on cataloguing rather than the catalogue, although it is obviously difficult to separate one from the other. First of all, what does "cataloguing" mean? For the purposes of this paper I have adopted a broad definition incorporating the following activities: - description of the resource sufficient for purposes of identification and for differentiation from other similar resources - identification and control of access points - identification and control of relationships with other resources - subject analysis of the resource - assignment of subject indexing terms - assignment of classification numbers The challenges facing cataloguing are all too well known. In no particular order, the major challenges are: - Increasing inputs - New kinds of information resource - Competition from other mediation services. - Perception that cataloguing is high cost and offers poor value for money. - Fiscal constraints - Declining workforce This is a daunting list. We have a choice, we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, "Turn off our minds, relax and float down stream", until we retire, take voluntary redundancy, or retrain as marketing consultants; or, we can choose to confront these challenges and consider what they really mean for cataloguing.

Language

a

0.0035052493 = product of:
  0.008763123 = sum of:
    0.0048162127 = weight(_text_:a in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048162127 = score(doc=2958,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=2958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The report aims to analyze the applicability of the Resource Description and Access (RDA) within the Italian public libraries, and also in the archives and museums in order to contribute to the discussion at international level. The Central Institute for the Union Catalogue of Italian libraries (ICCU) manages the online catalogue of the Italian libraries and the network of bibliographic services. ICCU has the institutional task of coordinating the cataloging and the documentation activities for the Italian libraries. On March 31 st 2014, the Institute signed the Agreement with the American Library Association,Publishing ALA, for the Italian translation rights of RDA, now available and published inRDAToolkit. The Italian translation has been carried out and realized by the Technical Working Group, made up of the main national and academic libraries, cultural Institutions and bibliographic agencies. The Group started working from the need of studying the new code in its textual detail, to better understand the principles, purposes, and applicability and finally its sustainability within the national context in relation to the area of the bibliographic control. At international level, starting from the publication of the Italian version of RDA and through the research carried out by ICCU and by the national Working Groups, the purpose is a more direct comparison with the experiences of the other European countries, also within EURIG international context, for an exchange of experiences aimed at strengthening the informational content of the data cataloging, with respect to history, cultural traditions and national identities of the different countries.

Type

a

0.002940995 = product of:
  0.007352487 = sum of:
    0.0034055763 = weight(_text_:a in 4386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0034055763 = score(doc=4386,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.06369744 = fieldWeight in 4386, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4386)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 4386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=4386,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4386, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4386)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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/

0.0028041997 = product of:
  0.007010499 = sum of:
    0.00385297 = weight(_text_:a in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00385297 = score(doc=4283,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.072065435 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
    0.003157529 = product of:
      0.006315058 = sum of:
        0.006315058 = weight(_text_:information in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006315058 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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]

0.0024520152 = product of:
  0.012260076 = sum of:
    0.012260076 = weight(_text_:a in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012260076 = score(doc=2884,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

OpenRefine is described as a tool for working with 'messy' data - but what does this mean? It is probably easiest to describe the kinds of data OpenRefine is good at working with and the sorts of problems it can help you solve. OpenRefine is most useful where you have data in a simple tabular format but with internal inconsistencies either in data formats, or where data appears, or in terminology used. It can help you: Get an overview of a data set Resolve inconsistencies in a data set Help you split data up into more granular parts Match local data up to other data sets Enhance a data set with data from other sources Some common scenarios might be: 1. Where you want to know how many times a particular value appears in a column in your data. 2. Where you want to know how values are distributed across your whole data set. 3. Where you have a list of dates which are formatted in different ways, and want to change all the dates in the list to a single common date format.

0.002359453 = product of:
  0.011797264 = sum of:
    0.011797264 = weight(_text_:a in 8920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011797264 = score(doc=8920,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 8920, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8920)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A BIBFRAME Relationship is a relationship between a BIBFRAME Work or Instance and another BIBFRAME Work or Instance. Thus there are four types of relationships: Work to Work - Work to Instance - Instance to Work - Instance to Instance

0.0023357389 = product of:
  0.011678694 = sum of:
    0.011678694 = weight(_text_:a in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011678694 = score(doc=2430,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

Type

a

0.002311782 = product of:
  0.01155891 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 2950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=2950,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2950, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2950)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

RDA appears to be an hybrid standard: a list containing a high number of bibliographic elements and a rewrite - more formal than substantial - of cataloguing practices established with AACR2. In this document, RDA guidelines are analysed trying to compare them to the requirements of good cataloguing rules. Cataloguing rules in general shold not be an abstract and self-referential model but an effective tool to analyse and represent cultural phenomena, useful to qualified staff and helpful in learning about users need. From this point of view, RDA is quite disappointing: many relevant and frequent cataloguing issues are not mentioned at all, and cataloguing itself is left without real guidelines. A certain number of omissions, mistakes and individual flawness in the text should be modified by RDA board with a deep analysis of real cataloguing activities.

Type

a

0.002311782 = product of:
  0.01155891 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 2953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=2953,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2953, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2953)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents the process adopted by the France to bring library catalogs to the Web of data and the RDA role in this general strategy. After analising RDA limits and inconsistencies, inherited from the tradition of AACR and MARC21 catalogues, the authors present the French approach to RDA and its positioning in correlation to international standards like ISBD and FRBR. The method adopted in France for FRBRising the catalogues go through a technical work of creating alignment beteween existing data, exploiting the technologies applied to the creation of data.bnf.fr and through a revision of the French cataloguing rules, allowing FRBRised metadata creation. This revision is based on RDA and it is setting up a French RDA application profile, keeping the analysis on the greater differences. RDA adoption, actually, is not a crucial issue in France and not a self standing purpose; it is just a tool for the transition of bibliographic data towards the Web of data.

Type

a

0.0021795689 = product of:
  0.010897844 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 5903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=5903,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5903, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5903)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0021795689 = product of:
  0.010897844 = sum of:
    0.010897844 = weight(_text_:a in 3759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010897844 = score(doc=3759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3759)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0021624742 = product of:
  0.010812371 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=2882,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This short publication was made for two reasons. First, to provide a simple way to help people understand a bit more precisely what is defined by RDA, AACR2, MARC format, and so on. In this way, when someone says that MARC, or AARC2, or ISBD should change, they will have a better idea of what each term does and does not pertain to. One record has been chosen at random and analysed in various ways. This publication is far from complete and does not pretend to teach anything, it only demonstrates. When someone talks about, e.g. MARC, all the reader needs to do is look at the colored areas to get an idea of what that means.

Source

http://blog.jweinheimer.net/wp-content/Ebooks/A%20visual%20explanation%20of%20the%20are%20-%20James%20Weinheimer.pdf

0.0021624742 = product of:
  0.010812371 = sum of:
    0.010812371 = weight(_text_:a in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010812371 = score(doc=3523,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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?

Type

a

0.0021538758 = product of:
  0.010769378 = sum of:
    0.010769378 = weight(_text_:a in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010769378 = score(doc=2952,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Toolkit designed by the RDA Steering Committee makes Resource Description and Access available on the web, together with other useful documents (workflows, mappings, etc.). Reading, learning and memorizing are interconnected, and a working tool should make these activities faster and easier to perform. Some issues arise while verifying the real easiness of use and learning of the tool. The practical and formal requirements for a cataloguing code include plain language, ease of memorisation, clarity of instructions, familiarity for users, predictability and reproducibility of solutions, and general usability. From a formal point of view, the RDA text does not appear to be conceived for an uninterrupted reading, but just for reading of few paragraphs for temporary catalographic needs. From a content point of view, having a syndetic view of the description of a resource is rather difficult: catalographic details are scattered and their re-organization is not easy. The visualisation and logical organisation in the Toolkit could be improved: the table of contents occupies a sizable portion of the screen and resizing or hiding it is not easy; the indentation leaves little space to the words; inhomogeneous font styles (italic and bold) and poor contrast between background and text colours make reading not easy; simultaneous visualization of two or more parts of the text is not allowed; and Toolkit's icons are less intuitive than expected. In the conclusion, some suggestions on how to improve the Toolkit's aspects and usability are provided.

Type

a

0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 5412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=5412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5412)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.0018875621 = product of:
  0.009437811 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 1660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=1660,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.0018875621 = product of:
  0.009437811 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 1562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=1562,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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