-
Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008)
0.09
0.088672936 = product of:
0.11823058 = sum of:
0.059695937 = weight(_text_:digital in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059695937 = score(doc=2429,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30194187 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=2429,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
0.027906192 = product of:
0.055812385 = sum of:
0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055812385 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- 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.
-
Mayo, D.; Bowers, K.: ¬The devil's shoehorn : a case study of EAD to ArchivesSpace migration at a large university (2017)
0.08
0.0846572 = product of:
0.112876266 = sum of:
0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043081827 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027071979 = score(doc=3373,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
0.04272246 = product of:
0.08544492 = sum of:
0.08544492 = weight(_text_:project in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08544492 = score(doc=3373,freq=6.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.40387696 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.75 = coord(3/4)
- Abstract
- A band of archivists and IT professionals at Harvard took on a project to convert nearly two million descriptions of archival collection components from marked-up text into the ArchivesSpace archival metadata management system. Starting in the mid-1990s, Harvard was an alpha implementer of EAD, an SGML (later XML) text markup language for electronic inventories, indexes, and finding aids that archivists use to wend their way through the sometimes quirky filing systems that bureaucracies establish for their records or the utter chaos in which some individuals keep their personal archives. These pathfinder documents, designed to cope with messy reality, can themselves be difficult to classify. Portions of them are rigorously structured, while other parts are narrative. Early documents predate the establishment of the standard; many feature idiosyncratic encoding that had been through several machine conversions, while others were freshly encoded and fairly consistent. In this paper, we will cover the practical and technical challenges involved in preparing a large (900MiB) corpus of XML for ingest into an open-source archival information system (ArchivesSpace). This case study will give an overview of the project, discuss problem discovery and problem solving, and address the technical challenges, analysis, solutions, and decisions and provide information on the tools produced and lessons learned. The authors of this piece are Kate Bowers, Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards at the Harvard University Archive, and Dave Mayo, a Digital Library Software Engineer for Harvard's Library and Technology Services. Kate was heavily involved in both metadata analysis and later problem solving, while Dave was the sole full-time developer assigned to the migration project.
-
Beacom, M.: Crossing a digital divide : AACR2 and unaddressed problems of networked ressources (2000)
0.07
0.07466953 = product of:
0.14933906 = sum of:
0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 6805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10339639 = score(doc=6805,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 6805, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6805)
0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 6805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045942668 = score(doc=6805,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 6805, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6805)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Footnote
- Paper for the conference 'Bibliographic control for the new millennium' held in Washington, DC at the Library of Congress, November 2000
-
Huthwaite, A.: AACR2 and its place in the digital world : near-term solutions and long-term direction (2000)
0.06
0.062224608 = product of:
0.124449216 = sum of:
0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 6806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.086163655 = score(doc=6806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 6806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6806)
0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 6806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03828556 = score(doc=6806,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 6806, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6806)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Footnote
- Paper for the conference 'Bibliographic control for the new millennium' held in Washington, DC at the Library of Congress, November 2000
-
Coyle, K.; Hillmann, D.: Resource Description and Access (RDA) : cataloging rules for the 20th century (2007)
0.05
0.049606234 = product of:
0.09921247 = sum of:
0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060926907 = score(doc=2525,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03828556 = score(doc=2525,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.
-
Edmunds, J.: Roadmap to nowhere : BIBFLOW, BIBFRAME, and linked data for libraries (2017)
0.05
0.04552724 = product of:
0.09105448 = sum of:
0.039787523 = weight(_text_:library in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039787523 = score(doc=3523,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
0.051266953 = product of:
0.10253391 = sum of:
0.10253391 = weight(_text_:project in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10253391 = score(doc=3523,freq=6.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.48465237 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?
-
Degkwitz, A.: "Next Generation Library Systems (NGLS) in Germany" (ALMA,WMS) (2016)
0.04
0.043220416 = product of:
0.08644083 = sum of:
0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030628446 = score(doc=3554,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
0.055812385 = product of:
0.11162477 = sum of:
0.11162477 = weight(_text_:project in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11162477 = score(doc=3554,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.52762264 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Fazit: "But in the end of the day: All the synchronisation procedures, which have been considered, failed or are too sophisticated. The project recommended cataloging in the World Cat, what includes a number of conditions and prerequisites like interfaces, data formats, working procedures etc."
- Object
- CIB Project
-
Danskin, A.: RDA implementation and application : British Library (2014)
0.04
0.04139024 = product of:
0.08278048 = sum of:
0.043315165 = weight(_text_:library in 1562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043315165 = score(doc=1562,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 1562, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1562)
0.039465316 = product of:
0.07893063 = sum of:
0.07893063 = weight(_text_:project in 1562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07893063 = score(doc=1562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.37308553 = fieldWeight in 1562, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1562)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The British Library implemented the new international cataloguing standard RDA in April 2013. The paper describes the reasons for the change, the project organization, the necessary adaptations to the systems and the training programs. Altogether, 227 staff were trained. Productivity levels by now are comparable with the levels for AACR2. However, there was a tendency to spend too much time on authority control.
-
Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2005)
0.04
0.040482227 = product of:
0.08096445 = sum of:
0.05136547 = weight(_text_:library in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05136547 = score(doc=1086,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
0.029598987 = product of:
0.059197973 = sum of:
0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059197973 = score(doc=1086,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos
- Content
- Vgl. auch: Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.1, S.xx-xx.
- Source
- http://www.loc.gov/library/reports/CatalogingSpeech.pdf
-
Delsey, T.: ¬The Making of RDA (2016)
0.04
0.036035247 = product of:
0.072070494 = sum of:
0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.051698197 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
0.0203723 = product of:
0.0407446 = sum of:
0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0407446 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The author revisits the development of RDA from its inception in 2005 through to its initial release in 2010. The development effort is set in the context of an evolving digital environment that was transforming both the production and dissemination of information resources and the technologies used to create, store, and access data describing those resources. The author examines the interplay between strategic commitments to align RDA with new conceptual models, emerging database structures, and metadata developments in allied communities, on the one hand, and compatibility with AACR2 legacy databases on the other. Aspects of the development effort examined include the structuring of RDA as a resource description language, organizing the new standard as a working tool, and refining guidelines and instructions for recording RDA data.
- Date
- 17. 5.2016 19:22:40
-
Koster, L.: Persistent identifiers for heritage objects (2020)
0.03
0.031112304 = product of:
0.062224608 = sum of:
0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043081827 = score(doc=5718,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01914278 = score(doc=5718,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.
-
Mimno, D.; Crane, G.; Jones, A.: Hierarchical catalog records : implementing a FRBR catalog (2005)
0.03
0.030495238 = product of:
0.060990475 = sum of:
0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034465462 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
0.026525015 = weight(_text_:library in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026525015 = score(doc=1183,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.20126988 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
-
Behrens, R.; Aliverti, C.; Schaffner, V.: RDA in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland : a new standard not only for libraries (2016)
0.03
0.02628516 = product of:
0.05257032 = sum of:
0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022971334 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.029598987 = product of:
0.059197973 = sum of:
0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059197973 = score(doc=2954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The library community in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland achieved a common goal at the end of 2015. After more than two years of intensive preparation, the international standard RDA was implemented and the practical work has now started. The article describes the project in terms of the political and organizational situation in the three countries, and points out the objectives which have been achieved as well as the work which is still outstanding. An overview is given of the initial efforts to align special materials with RDA in the German-speaking countries, and the tasks associated with the specific requirements arising from the multilingual nature of Switzerland are described. Furthermore, the article reports on the current strategic developments in the international RDA committees like the RDA Steering Committee (RSC) and the European RDA Interest Group (EURIG).
-
Edmunds, J.: Zombrary apocalypse!? : RDA, LRM, and the death of cataloging (2017)
0.02
0.024889842 = product of:
0.049779683 = sum of:
0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034465462 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015314223 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- A brochure on RDA issued in 2010 includes the statements that "RDA goes beyond earlier cataloguing codes in that it provides guidelines on cataloguing digital resources and a stronger emphasis on helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want. RDA also supports clustering of bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators. This important new feature makes users more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats - an exciting development." Setting aside the fact that the author(s) of these statements and I differ on the definition of exciting, their claims are, at best, dubious. There is no evidence-empirical or anecdotal-that bibliographic records created using RDA are any better than records created using AACR2 (or AACR, for that matter) in "helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want." The claim is especially unfounded in the context of the current discovery ecosystem, in which users are perfectly capable of finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining information with absolutely no assistance from libraries or the bibliographic data libraries create.
Equally fallacious is the statement that support for the "clustering bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators" is an "important new feature" of RDA. AACR2 bibliographic records and the systems housing them can, did, and do show such relationships. Finally, whether users want or care to be made "more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats" is debatable. As an aim, it sounds less like what a user wants and more like what a cataloging librarian thinks a user should want. As Amanda Cossham writes in her recently issued doctoral thesis: "The explicit focus on user needs in the FRBR model, the International Cataloguing Principles, and RDA: Resource Description and Access does not align well with the ways that users use, understand, and experience library catalogues nor with the ways that they understand and experience the wider information environment. User tasks, as constituted in the FRBR model and RDA, are insufficient to meet users' needs." (p. 11, emphasis in the original)
-
RDA Toolkit (4) : Dezember 2017 (2017)
0.02
0.024746098 = product of:
0.049492195 = sum of:
0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015314223 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
0.03417797 = product of:
0.06835594 = sum of:
0.06835594 = weight(_text_:project in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06835594 = score(doc=4283,freq=6.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.32310158 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Am 12. Dezember 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits erschienen. Dabei gab es, aufgrund des 3R-Projekts (RDA Toolkit Restruction and Redesign Project), keine inhaltlichen Änderungen am RDA-Text. Es wurden ausschließlich die Übersetzungen in finnischer und französischer Sprache, ebenso wie die dazugehörigen Policy statements, aktualisiert. Für den deutschsprachigen Raum wurden in der Übersetzung zwei Beziehungskennzeichnungen geändert: Im Anhang I.2.2 wurde die Änderung von "Sponsor" zu "Träger" wieder rückgängig gemacht. In Anhang K.2.3 wurde "Sponsor" zu "Person als Sponsor" geändert. Außerdem wurde die Übersetzung der Anwendungsrichtlinien (D-A-CH AWR) ins Französische aktualisiert. Dies ist das vorletzte Release vor dem Rollout des neuen Toolkits. Das letzte Release im Januar/Februar 2018 wird die norwegische Übersetzung enthalten. Im Juni 2018 wird das RDA Toolkit ein Relaunch erfahren und mit einer neuen Oberfläche erscheinen. Dieser beinhaltet ein Redesign der Toolkit-Oberfläche und die inhaltliche Anpassung des Standards RDA an das Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM) sowie die künftige stärkere Ausrichtung auf die aktuellen technischen Möglichkeiten. Zunächst wird im Juni 2018 die englische Originalausgabe der RDA in der neuen Form erscheinen. Alle Übersetzungen werden in einer Übergangszeit angepasst. Hierfür wird die alte Version des RDA Toolkit für ein weiteres Jahr zur Verfügung gestellt. Der Stand Dezember 2017 der deutschen Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien bleiben bis zur Anpassung eingefroren. Nähere Information zum Rollout finden Sie unter dem folgenden Link<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/3Rproject/SR3>. [Inetbib vom 13.12.2017]
"das RDA Steering Committee (RSC) hat eine Verlautbarung<http://www.rda-rsc.org/sites/all/files/RSC-Chair-19.pdf> zum 3R Project und dem Release des neuen RDA Toolkits am 13. Juni 2018 herausgegeben. Außerdem wurde ein neuer Post zum Projekt auf dem RDA Toolkit Blog veröffentlicht "What to Expect from the RDA Toolkit beta site"<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/3Rproject/Beta>. Die deutsche Übersetzung folgt in Kürze auf dem RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/display/RDAINFO/RDA-Info>. Für den deutschsprachigen Raum wird das Thema im Rahmen des Deutschen Bibliothekartags in Berlin im Treffpunkt Standardisierung am Freitag, den 15. Juni aufgegriffen. Die durch das 3R Project entstandenen Anpassungsarbeiten für den DACH-Raum werden im Rahmen eines 3R-DACH-Projekts<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/v5jpBw> in den Fachgruppen des Standardisierungsausschusses durchgeführt. Für die praktische Arbeit ändert sich bis zur Durchführung von Anpassungsschulungen nichts. Basis für die Erschließung bleibt bis dahin die aktuelle Version des RDA Toolkits in deutscher Sprache." [Mail R. Behrens an Inetbib vom 11.06.2018].
-
Lee, W.-C.: Conflicts of semantic warrants in cataloging practices (2017)
0.02
0.0219043 = product of:
0.0438086 = sum of:
0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01914278 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
0.024665821 = product of:
0.049331643 = sum of:
0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049331643 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.
-
RDA Toolkit (3) : Oktober 2017 (2017)
0.02
0.0219043 = product of:
0.0438086 = sum of:
0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01914278 = score(doc=3994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
0.024665821 = product of:
0.049331643 = sum of:
0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 3994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049331643 = score(doc=3994,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 3994, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3994)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Am 10. Oktober 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits erschienen. Aufgrund des 3R-Projekts (RDA Toolkit Restruction and Redesign Project) gab es keine inhaltlichen Änderungen am Regelwerkstext. Es wurden ausschließlich Änderungen an den D-A-CH vorgenommen, die in der Änderungsdokumentation im RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/1hLSBg> aufgelistet sind. Die Gesamtübersicht der D-A-CH nach Kapiteln finden Sie im RDA Toolkit unter dem Reiter "Ressourcen". Wir möchten daran erinnern, dass für die Anwendung von RDA im deutschsprachigen Raum jeweils der deutsche Text maßgeblich ist. Im Juni 2018 wird das RDA Toolkit einen Relaunch erfahren und mit einer neuen Oberfläche erscheinen. Dieser beinhaltet ein Redesign der Toolkit-Oberfläche und die inhaltliche Anpassung des Standards RDA an das Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM) sowie die künftige stärkere Ausrichtung auf die aktuellen technischen Möglichkeiten durch den sogenannten 4-Fold-Path. Zunächst wird im Juni 2018 die englische Originalausgabe der RDA in der neuen Form erscheinen. Alle Übersetzungen werden in einer Übergangszeit angepasst. Hierfür wird die alte Version des RDA Toolkit für ein weiteres Jahr zur Verfügung gestellt. Der Stand Oktober 2017 der deutschen Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien bleiben bis zur Anpassung eingefroren. Im geplanten Dezember-Release des RDA Toolkit wird es keine Änderungen für die deutsche Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien geben. [Inetbib vom 11.10.2017]
-
Schwarz, S.: Kompetenzvermittlung digital : how to ... RDA? : Konzeption eines digitalen Lernangebots an der Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln (2021)
0.02
0.021324418 = product of:
0.085297674 = sum of:
0.085297674 = weight(_text_:digital in 380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.085297674 = score(doc=380,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.43143538 = fieldWeight in 380, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=380)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Die Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln stellt im Zuge der Coronapandemie und der dadurch beschleunigten Digitalisierungsprozesse ihr universitätsinternes Präsenzschulungsangebot zum Regelwerk RDA auf ein digitales Kursangebot um. Dafür wurden Inhalte, Struktur und Ablauf der bisherigen RDA-Schulungen bedarfsorientiert angepasst, aktualisiert, reorganisiert und anhand mediendidaktischer Standards digital aufbereitet. Der neu entstandene E-Learning-Kurs "How to ... RDA?" bietet ein rein digitales RDA-Lernformat mit dem Fokus auf Flexibilität, Praxisnähe und unterschiedliche Lernbedürfnisse.
-
Gonzalez, L.: What is FRBR? (2005)
0.02
0.020723322 = product of:
0.041446645 = sum of:
0.017232731 = weight(_text_:digital in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017232731 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.087163106 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
0.024213914 = weight(_text_:library in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024213914 = score(doc=3401,freq=20.0), product of:
0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.18373342 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This brief and gentle introduction to some key concepts laid out in the IFLA-produced Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records paper should be read by any librarian wondering what all the "ferber" fuss is about. Scratch that. It should be read by any librarian period. It's time for us to admit our library catalogs are a mess from a user's perspective, and FRBR can provide at least a partial solution to the problems we face in fixing our systems. Therefore, knowledge of the basic concepts that are already beginning to transform our bibliographic systems should be considered basic, foundational, professional knowledge. So start here, if you must, but then feel free to follow up with the full report.
- Content
- "Catalogers, catalog managers, and others in library technical services have become increasingly interested in, worried over, and excited about FRBR (the acronym for Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records). Staff outside of the management of the library's bibliographic database may wonder what the fuss is about (FERBER? FURBUR?), assuming that FRBR is just another addition to the stable of acronyms that catalogers bandy about, a mate or sibling to MARC and AACR2. FRBR, however, has the potential to inspire dramatic changes in library catalogs, and those changes will greatly impact how reference and resource sharing staff and patrons use this core tool. FRBR is a conceptual model for how bibliographic databases might be structured, considering what functions bibliographic records should fulfill in an era when card catalogs are databases with unique possibilities. In some ways FRBR clarifies certain cataloging practices that librarians have been using for over 160 years, since Sir Anthony Panizzi, Keeper of the Printed Books at the British Museum, introduced a set of 91 rules to catalog the print collections of the museum. Sir Anthony believed that patrons should be able to find a particular work by looking in the catalog, that all of an author's works should be retrievable, and that all editions of a work should be assembled together. In other ways, FRBR extends upon past practice to take advantage fully of the capabilities of digital technology to associate bibliographic records in ways a card catalog cannot. FRBR was prepared by a study group assembled by IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) that included staff of the Library of Congress (LC). The final report of the group, "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records," is available online. The group began by asking how an online library catalog might better meet users' needs to find, identify, select, and obtain the resources they want.
Better navigation FRBR is a way of explaining the bibliographic world, in a library context, to allow for a better arrangement and collocation of records in a bibliographic database and, consequently, better navigation. FRBR could make possible a catalog that would group all the bibliographic records for all the filmed versions of Romeo and Juliet in sets organized by the language of the production, for example. Within each language's set would be separate subsets for those on DVD and those on videocassette. This would eliminate the screen after screen of displays of bibliographic headings, each of which a user has to investigate to determine if the record is really for the resource he or she needs ("Where's the movie version on DVD?") The larger the size of the database, the more such organization promises cleaner, more navigable displays to searchers. This is why FRBR is especially important in resource sharing environments-where databases seem to grow exponentially. From items to works One of the bases for that organization is FRBR's conception of bibliographic resources, which fall into four "entities": item, manifestation, expression, and work. An "item" is familiar to us: the object that sits on a shelf, which gets checked out, damaged, repaired, then eventually discarded. In the current era, it may not be physical but instead virtual, like an ebook. The "item," an individual copy, is a single example of a "manifestation," the publication by a certain publisher of a text, or of a sound or video recording. Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf, published in hardback by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in 1999, is one manifestation. Heaney's translation of Beowulf published in paperback by W.W. Norton in 2000 is another. Heaney's Beowulf as it appears in the collection Wizards: Stories of Magic, Mischief and Mayhem (Thunder's Mouth, 2001) is yet another manifestation. Manifestations are generally what catalogers catalog. All of these are manifestations of an "expression," a more abstract and intangible entity. Heaney's translation of Beowulf, independent of who is publishing it and when, is one "expression" of that work. The translation by Barry Tharaud is another.
What are these two Beowulf translations "expressions" of? I used the term work above, an even more abstract concept in the FRBR model. In this case, the "work" is Beowulf , that ancient intellectual creation or effort that over time has been expressed in multiple ways, each manifested in several different ways itself, with one or more items in each manifestation. This is a pretty gross oversimplification of FRBR, which also details other relationships: among these entities; between these entities and various persons (such as creators, publishers, and owners); and between these entities and their subjects. It also specifies characteristics, or "attributes," of the different types of entities (such as title, physical media, date, availability, and more.). But it should be enough to grasp the possibilities. Now apply it Imagine that you have a patron who needs a copy of Heaney's translation of Beowulf . She doesn't care who published it or when, only that it's Heaney's translation. What if you (or your patron) could place an interlibrary loan call on that expression, instead of looking through multiple bibliographic records (as of March, OCLC's WorldCat had nine regular print editions) for multiple manifestations and then judging which record is the best bet on which to place a request? Combine that with functionality that lets you specify "not Braille, not large print," and it could save you time. Now imagine a patron in want of a copy, any copy, in English, of Romeo and Juliet. Saving staff time means saving money. Whether or not this actually happens depends upon what the library community decides to do with FRBR. It is not a set of cataloging rules or a system design, but it can influence both. Several library system vendors are working with FRBR ideas; VTLS's current integrated library system product Virtua incorporates FRBR concepts in its design. More vendors may follow. How the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules develops the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) to incorporate FRBR will necessarily be a strong determinant of how records work in a "FRBR-ized" bibliographic database.
-
Tillett, B.B.: RDA, or, The long journey of the catalog to the digital age (2016)
0.02
0.015078641 = product of:
0.060314562 = sum of:
0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060314562 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.050121464 = queryNorm
0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
