Search (56 results, page 3 of 3)

O'Neill, E.T.: OCLC's experience identifying and using works (2004) 0.00
```
0.004615356 = product of:
  0.013846068 = sum of:
    0.013846068 = product of:
      0.0415382 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=2459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?
Schmidgall, K.: ¬Die FRBR aus der Sicht eines Literaturarchivs : Nostalgie oder Zukunftskonzept? (2004) 0.00
```
0.004615356 = product of:
  0.013846068 = sum of:
    0.013846068 = product of:
      0.0415382 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 2483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=2483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 2483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2483)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?
Tillett, B.: What is FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records)? (2004) 0.00
```
0.004615356 = product of:
  0.013846068 = sum of:
    0.013846068 = product of:
      0.0415382 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=2484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 2484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2484)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?
Hengel-Dittrich, C.: FRANAR: Functional Requirements for Authority Records (2004) 0.00
```
0.004615356 = product of:
  0.013846068 = sum of:
    0.013846068 = product of:
      0.0415382 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=2485,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 2485, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2485)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?
Boeuf, P. le: "Zwischen Traum und Wirklichkeit" : die FRBR-Theorisierung und einige FRBR-Anwendungen (2004) 0.00
```
0.004615356 = product of:
  0.013846068 = sum of:
    0.013846068 = product of:
      0.0415382 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 2486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=2486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 2486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2486)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?

Delsey, T.: ¬The Making of RDA (2016) 0.00

0.0046085827 = product of:
  0.013825747 = sum of:
    0.013825747 = product of:
      0.04147724 = sum of:
        0.04147724 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04147724 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date: 17. 5.2016 19:22:40

FictionFinder : a FRBR-based prototype for fiction in WorldCat (o.J.) 0.00

0.004038437 = product of:
  0.01211531 = sum of:
    0.01211531 = product of:
      0.03634593 = sum of:
        0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 2432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03634593 = score(doc=2432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 2432, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2432)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content: Online-Demo unter: http://experimental.worldcat.org/xfinder/fictionfinder.html.

Cossham, A.F.: Models of the bibliographic universe (2017) 0.00
```
0.004038437 = product of:
  0.01211531 = sum of:
    0.01211531 = product of:
      0.03634593 = sum of:
        0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03634593 = score(doc=3817,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
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.
Morris, S.R.; Wiggins, B.: Implementing RDA at the Library of Congress (2016) 0.00
```
0.0034615172 = product of:
  0.010384551 = sum of:
    0.010384551 = product of:
      0.031153653 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 2947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=2947,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2947, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2947)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
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.
Woppowa, B.; Wiesenmüller, H.: Öffentliche Bibliotheken und Katalogisierung : eine Analyse der aktuellen Praxis in Deutschland (2018) 0.00
```
0.0034615172 = product of:
  0.010384551 = sum of:
    0.010384551 = product of:
      0.031153653 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 4482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=4482,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 4482, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4482)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über den aktuellen Stand der Katalogisierungspraxis öffentlicher Bibliotheken in Deutschland. Mithilfe einer Online-Befragung wurden repräsentativ ausgewählte öffentliche Bibliotheken zu ihrem Vorgehen bei der Katalogisierung befragt, z.B. zur Fremddatenübernahme und zum eingesetzten Personal. Auch die Ansichten und Einschätzungen in Bezug auf die Bedeutung der Katalogisierung und die für die Katalogisierungstätigkeit benötigten Kenntnisse und Kompetenzen wurden abgefragt. Die Ergebnisse der 187 teilnehmenden Bibliotheken zeigen auf, wie vielfältig die Katalogisierungspraxis an deutschen öffentlichen Bibliotheken ist, machen dabei aber auch deutlich, dass die Bedeutung der Katalogisierung an öffentlichen Bibliotheken viel größer ist als oftmals angenommen.
Gatenby, J.; Thornburg, G.; Weitz, J.: Collected work clustering in WorldCat : three techniques for maintaining records (2015) 0.00
```
0.0034387745 = product of:
  0.0103163235 = sum of:
    0.0103163235 = product of:
      0.03094897 = sum of:
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

WorldCat records are clustered into works, and within works, into content and manifestation clusters. A recent project revisited the clustering of collected works that had been previously sidelined because of the challenges posed by their complexity. Attention was given to both the identification of collected works and to the determination of the component works within them. By extensively analysing cast-list information, performance notes, contents notes, titles, uniform titles and added entries, the contents of collected works could be identified and differentiated so that correct clustering was achieved. Further work is envisaged in the form of refining the tests and weights and also in the creation and use of name/title authority records and other knowledge cards in clustering. There is a requirement to link collected works with their component works for use in search and retrieval.
Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008) 0.00
```
0.0032635499 = product of:
  0.00979065 = sum of:
    0.00979065 = product of:
      0.029371947 = sum of:
        0.029371947 = weight(_text_:online in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029371947 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.
Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.
Byrd, J.; Charbonneau, G.; Charbonneau, M.; Courtney, A.; Johnson, E.; Leonard, K.; Morrison, A.; Mudge, S.; O'Bryan, A.; Opasik, S.; Riley, J.; Turchyn, S.: ¬A white paper on the future of cataloging at Indiana University (2006) 0.00
```
0.0028845975 = product of:
  0.008653793 = sum of:
    0.008653793 = product of:
      0.025961377 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.
Buttò, S.: RDA: analyses, considerations and activities by the Central Institute for the Union Catalogue of Italian Libraries and Bibliographic Information (ICCU) (2016) 0.00
```
0.0028845975 = product of:
  0.008653793 = sum of:
    0.008653793 = product of:
      0.025961377 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=2958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
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.
Mimno, D.; Crane, G.; Jones, A.: Hierarchical catalog records : implementing a FRBR catalog (2005) 0.00
```
0.002307678 = product of:
  0.006923034 = sum of:
    0.006923034 = product of:
      0.0207691 = sum of:
        0.0207691 = weight(_text_:online in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0207691 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
Abstract

IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) lay the foundation for a new generation of cataloging systems that recognize the difference between a particular work (e.g., Moby Dick), diverse expressions of that work (e.g., translations into German, Japanese and other languages), different versions of the same basic text (e.g., the Modern Library Classics vs. Penguin editions), and particular items (a copy of Moby Dick on the shelf). Much work has gone into finding ways to infer FRBR relationships between existing catalog records and modifying catalog interfaces to display those relationships. Relatively little work, however, has gone into exploring the creation of catalog records that are inherently based on the FRBR hierarchy of works, expressions, manifestations, and items. The Perseus Digital Library has created a new catalog that implements such a system for a small collection that includes many works with multiple versions. We have used this catalog to explore some of the implications of hierarchical catalog records for searching and browsing. Current online library catalog interfaces present many problems for searching. One commonly cited failure is the inability to find and collocate all versions of a distinct intellectual work that exist in a collection and the inability to take into account known variations in titles and personal names (Yee 2005). The IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) attempts to address some of these failings by introducing the concept of multiple interrelated bibliographic entities (IFLA 1998). In particular, relationships between abstract intellectual works and the various published instances of those works are divided into a four-level hierarchy of works (such as the Aeneid), expressions (Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), manifestations (a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), and items (my copy of a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid). In this formulation, each level in the hierarchy "inherits" information from the preceding level. Much of the work on FRBRized catalogs so far has focused on organizing existing records that describe individual physical books. Relatively little work has gone into rethinking what information should be in catalog records, or how the records should relate to each other. It is clear, however, that a more "native" FRBR catalog would include separate records for works, expressions, manifestations, and items. In this way, all information about a work would be centralized in one record. Records for subsequent expressions of that work would add only the information specific to each expression: Samuel Butler's translation of the Iliad does not need to repeat the fact that the work was written by Homer. This approach has certain inherent advantages for collections with many versions of the same works: new publications can be cataloged more quickly, and records can be stored and updated more efficiently.
Gonzalez, L.: What is FRBR? (2005) 0.00
```
0.0016317749 = product of:
  0.004895325 = sum of:
    0.004895325 = product of:
      0.0146859735 = sum of:
        0.0146859735 = weight(_text_:online in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0146859735 = score(doc=3401,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.09484067 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
```
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.

Search (56 results, page 3 of 3)

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

Themes