Search (61 results, page 1 of 4)

0.05719 = product of:
  0.142975 = sum of:
    0.12804233 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12804233 = score(doc=2433,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.7299458 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
    0.014932672 = product of:
      0.029865343 = sum of:
        0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029865343 = score(doc=2433,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The goal of OCLC's FRBR projects is to examine issues associated with the conversion of a set of bibliographic records to conform to FRBR requirements (a process referred to as "FRBRization"). The goals of this FRBR project were to: - examine issues associated with creating an entity-relationship model for (i.e., "FRBRizing") a non-trivial work - better understand the relationship between the bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic record is sufficient to reliably identify the FRBR entities - to develop a data set that could be used to evaluate FRBRization algorithms. Using an exemplary work as a case study, lead scientist Ed O'Neill sought to: - better understand the relationship between bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic records is sufficient to reliably identify FRBR entities.

0.04922039 = product of:
  0.12305097 = sum of:
    0.105629526 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105629526 = score(doc=2432,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 2432, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2432)
    0.01742145 = product of:
      0.0348429 = sum of:
        0.0348429 = weight(_text_:data in 2432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348429 = score(doc=2432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2432, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

FictionFinder is a FRBR-based prototype that provides access to over 2.9 million bibliographic records for fiction books, eBooks, and audio materials described in OCLC WorldCat. This project applies principles of the FRBR model to aggregate bibliographic information above the manifestation level. Records are clustered into works using the OCLC FRBR Work-Set Algorithm. The algorithm collects bibliographic records into groups based on author and title information from bibliographic and authority records. Author names and titles are normalized to construct a key. All records with the same key are grouped together in a work set.

Source

http://www.oclc.org/research/themes/data-science/fictionfinder.html

0.04194648 = product of:
  0.10486619 = sum of:
    0.074691355 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074691355 = score(doc=2430,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
    0.03017484 = product of:
      0.06034968 = sum of:
        0.06034968 = weight(_text_:data in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06034968 = score(doc=2430,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.42357713 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.04194019 = product of:
  0.10485047 = sum of:
    0.09240658 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09240658 = score(doc=3875,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.52679294 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
    0.012443894 = product of:
      0.024887787 = sum of:
        0.024887787 = weight(_text_:data in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024887787 = score(doc=3875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.038126666 = product of:
  0.09531666 = sum of:
    0.08536155 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08536155 = score(doc=2960,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
    0.009955115 = product of:
      0.01991023 = sum of:
        0.01991023 = weight(_text_:data in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01991023 = score(doc=2960,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Comprehensive research on continuing resources has not been conducted in Croatia, therefore this paper will indicate the current bibliographic organisation of continuing resources in comparison to the parameters set by the IFLA models, and the potential flaws of the IFLA models in the bibliographic organisation of continuing resources, in comparison to the valid national code which is used in Croatian cataloguing practice. Research on the corpus of Croatian continuing resources was performed in the period from 2000 and 2011. By using the listed population through the method of deliberate stratified sampling, the titles which had been observed were selected. Through the method of observation of bibliographic records of the selected sample in the NUL catalogue, the frequency of occurrence of parameters from the IFLA models that should identify continuing resources will be recorded and should also show the characteristics of continuing resources. In determining the parameters of observation, the FRBR model is viewed in terms of bibliographic data, FRAD is viewed in terms of other groups or entities or controlled access points for work, person and the corporate body and FRSAD in terms of the third group of entities as the subject or the subject access to continuing resources. Research results indicate that the current model of bibliographic organisation presents a high frequency of attributes that are listed in the IFLA models for all types of resources, although that was not envisaged by the PPIAK, and it is clear that the practice has moved away from the national code which does not offer solutions for all types of resources and ever more so demanding users. The current model of bibliographic organisation of the corpus of Croatian continuing resources in regards to the new IFLA model requires certain changes in order for the user to more easily access and identify continuing resources. The research results also indicate the need to update the entity expression with the attribute mode of expression, and entity manifestation with the attributes mode of issuance, as well as further consideration in terms of the bibliographic organisation of continuing resources.

0.037554603 = product of:
  0.09388651 = sum of:
    0.06402116 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06402116 = score(doc=304,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
    0.029865343 = product of:
      0.059730686 = sum of:
        0.059730686 = weight(_text_:data in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059730686 = score(doc=304,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

Content

Text of presentations held at the international seminar "Global Interoperability and Linked Data in Libraries", Firenze, June 18-19, 2012.

0.037554603 = product of:
  0.09388651 = sum of:
    0.06402116 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06402116 = score(doc=2953,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2953, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2953)
    0.029865343 = product of:
      0.059730686 = sum of:
        0.059730686 = weight(_text_:data in 2953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059730686 = score(doc=2953,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 2953, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.037336905 = product of:
  0.09334226 = sum of:
    0.07840959 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07840959 = score(doc=1271,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.014932672 = product of:
      0.029865343 = sum of:
        0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029865343 = score(doc=1271,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.

Editor

Library of Congress / Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

Source

http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-report-draft-11-30-07-final.pdf

0.035157423 = product of:
  0.08789355 = sum of:
    0.07544966 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07544966 = score(doc=2958,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
    0.012443894 = product of:
      0.024887787 = sum of:
        0.024887787 = weight(_text_:data in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024887787 = score(doc=2958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, 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.

0.03355215 = product of:
  0.08388038 = sum of:
    0.073925264 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073925264 = score(doc=3818,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.42143437 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
    0.009955115 = product of:
      0.01991023 = sum of:
        0.01991023 = weight(_text_:data in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01991023 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.032107983 = product of:
  0.080269955 = sum of:
    0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060359728 = score(doc=2438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 2438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2438)
    0.01991023 = product of:
      0.03982046 = sum of:
        0.03982046 = weight(_text_:data in 2438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03982046 = score(doc=2438,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 2438, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2438)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

RDA Blog or Resource Description & Access Blog is a blog on Resource Description and Access (RDA), a new library cataloging standard that provides instructions and guidelines on formulating data for resource description and discovery, organized based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), intended for use by libraries and other cultural organizations replacing Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2). Free for everyone Forever.

0.028453577 = product of:
  0.07113394 = sum of:
    0.045269795 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045269795 = score(doc=3523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
    0.025864149 = product of:
      0.051728297 = sum of:
        0.051728297 = weight(_text_:data in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051728297 = score(doc=3523,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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?

0.028125936 = product of:
  0.07031484 = sum of:
    0.060359728 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060359728 = score(doc=3859,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
    0.009955115 = product of:
      0.01991023 = sum of:
        0.01991023 = weight(_text_:data in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01991023 = score(doc=3859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data - modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid - 1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early 20th - century British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911 - 1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can conceivably be classified. These he first divided into accidental and inseparable attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition - level and copy - level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into physical and non - physical attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstraction hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity - the book - , whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.028094485 = product of:
  0.07023621 = sum of:
    0.052814763 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052814763 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.01742145 = product of:
      0.0348429 = sum of:
        0.0348429 = weight(_text_:data in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348429 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

RDA was created in response to complaints about the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, especially the call for a more international, principle-based content standard that takes the perspective of the conceptual models of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data). The past and ongoing process for continuous improvement to RDA is through the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (known as the JSC, but recently renamed the RDA Steering Committee - RSC) to make RDA even more international and principle-based.

0.028094485 = product of:
  0.07023621 = sum of:
    0.052814763 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052814763 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
    0.01742145 = product of:
      0.0348429 = sum of:
        0.0348429 = weight(_text_:data in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348429 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Ability to collect time-specific lists of faculty publications has become increasingly important for academic departments. At OHSU publication lists had been retrieved manually by a librarian who conducted literature searches in bibliographic databases. These searches were complicated and time consuming, and the results were large and difficult to assess for accuracy. The OHSU library has built an open web page that allows novices to make very sophisticated institution-specific queries. The tool frees up library staff, provides users with an easy way of retrieving reliable local publication information from PubMed, and gives an opportunity for more sophisticated users to modify the algorithm or dive into the data to better understand nuances from a strong jumping off point.

0.025873844 = product of:
  0.12936921 = sum of:
    0.12936921 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12936921 = score(doc=3817,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.73751014 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.025608465 = product of:
  0.12804233 = sum of:
    0.12804233 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12804233 = score(doc=5399,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.7299458 = fieldWeight in 5399, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5399)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Vortrag, IFLA General Conference, Divison IV Bibliographic Control, Jerusalem, 2000

0.024080986 = product of:
  0.060202464 = sum of:
    0.045269795 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045269795 = score(doc=1152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
    0.014932672 = product of:
      0.029865343 = sum of:
        0.029865343 = weight(_text_:data in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029865343 = score(doc=1152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14247625 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04505818 = queryNorm
            0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Encoded Archival Description (EAD) is an emerging standard used internationally in an increasing number of archives and manuscripts libraries to encode data describing corporate records and personal papers. The individual descriptions are variously called finding aids, guides, handlists, or catalogs. While archival description shares many objectives with bibliographic description, it differs from it in several essential ways. From its inception, EAD was based on SGML, and, with the release of EAD version 1.0 in 1998, it is also compliant with XML. EAD was, and continues to be, developed by the archival community. While development was initiated in the United States, international interest and contribution are increasing. EAD is currently administered and maintained jointly by the Society of American Archivists and the United States Library of Congress. Developers are currently exploring ways to internationalize the administration and maintenance of EAD to reflect and represent the expanding base of users.

0.021340387 = product of:
  0.10670193 = sum of:
    0.10670193 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10670193 = score(doc=2263,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.6082881 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Originaltitel: Functional requirements for bibliographic records

0.021125905 = product of:
  0.105629526 = sum of:
    0.105629526 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.105629526 = score(doc=5412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17541347 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04505818 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 5412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5412)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Vortrag, IFLA General Conference, Divison IV Bibliographic Control, Jerusalem, 2000