Search (173 results, page 9 of 9)

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=466,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die Expertengruppe MAB-Ausschuss (seit 2005: Expertengruppe Datenformate) hat sich im Verlauf des Jahres 2004 mit den FRBR und ihren Bezügen zum MABFormat befasst. Es wurde eine Tabelle FRBR => MAB erstellt (veröffentlicht unter http://www.ddb.de/professionell/pdf/frbr_mab.pdf), wichtige Ergebnisse wurden im Artikel "Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken und die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records : Oder: Wieviel FRBR verträgt MAB?" im "Bibliotheksdienst" 39 (2005), Heft 10 zusammengefasst. Ergänzend dazu wurde bei der Arbeitsstelle Datenformate Der Deutschen Bibliothek versucht, MAB-Daten zu "frbrisieren", d. h. einzelne MAB-Datensätze in die vier Entitäten der Gruppe 1 (work / expression / manifestation / item) zu differenzieren. Ziel war nicht, einen fertigen OPAC-Baustein für die Indexierung, Benutzerführung oder Präsentation zu erstellen. Ziel war vielmehr, anhand von konkreten, in MAB strukturierten Daten die Schichten sichtbar zu machen. Ausgewählt für diesen Zweck wurde BISMAS, das "Bibliographische Informations-System zur Maschinellen Ausgabe und Suche" des BIS Oldenburg (www.bismas.de). In BISMAS ist es mit relativ geringem Aufwand möglich, die Präsentation eines Satzes - basierend auf der intern vorliegenden Datensatzstruktur, z.B. MAB - frei zu definieren. Die Gestaltung der Indices und der Ausgabeformate erfolgt in BISMAS mit Hilfe der Programmiersprache LM. Die Ergebnisse sollen hier anhand von Beispielen dargestellt werden.

5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Studying works allows us to see empirically the problem of instantiation of works, both at large and in the catalog. The linkage of relationships among works is a critical goal for information retrieval because the ability to comprehend and select a specific instantiation of a work is crucial for the advancement of scholarship. Hence, the present study examines the instantiation of works among a set of entities known to be popular-best selling books of the 20th century. A sample of best selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 was constructed. For each work in the sample, all bibliographic records were identified in both OCLC and RLIN as well as instantiations on the World Wide Web. All but one work in the sample exists in multiple instantiations; many have large networks; and complex networks of instantiations have begun to appear in full text on the Web. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of continuing to gather statistical data about works. Solutions devised for the catalog will need to be modified for use in the chaotic environment of the World Wide Web and its successors.

5.2312744E-4 = product of:
  0.003661892 = sum of:
    0.003661892 = product of:
      0.01830946 = sum of:
        0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01830946 = score(doc=832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to provide information about derivative bibliographic relationships in the online catalogue COBIB, to investigate size and complexity of bibliographic families and to determine whether bibliographic characteristics are associated with the extent of derivations. Design/methodology/approach - A bibliographic entity consisting of a work and item is represented by bibliographic records. A random sample of records is converted into a sample of progenitor works and bibliographic families for each progenitor are constructed. Findings - 25.75 per cent of progenitor works are derivative; successive derivations with 67.02 per cent appear most frequently. The size of bibliographic families ranges from 1 to 16; older progenitors have larger families. The majority of families have one type of relationship; there is one case with four types. A large proportion, 59.06 per cent, of derivative relationships is not expressed explicitly by catalogue. Research limitations/implications - Research of bibliographic records representing more than one work is needed. It is also important to find out what catalogue users are looking for: a work or an item? Practical implications - A model for COBIB is suggested; it enables an equal identification of works, items and relationships. A cataloguer must create an authority record for each work and link it with corresponding bibliographic records for items. Originality/value - Information about relationships should be incorporated into the catalogue and corresponding records linked. Explicit control of derivative relationships would be of great help to catalogue users and would make information retrieval improved and more precise; it would also allow more efficient use of knowledge and library materials.

4.5370017E-4 = product of:
  0.003175901 = sum of:
    0.003175901 = product of:
      0.015879504 = sum of:
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 1100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=1100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 1100, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1100)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Von der Vielzahl der Aspekte' die in den Referaten und der Diskussion angesprochen wurden' seien im Folgenden nur die wichtigsten (in subjektiver Auswahl und Wertung) angeführt: Trotz gemeinsamer Grundlagen sind die Unterschiede zwischen den RAK und den AACR2 beträchtlich. Dies machte ein Vergleich der beiden Regelwerke deutlich' den Prof. Margarete Payer (Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart) im Allgemeinen und Ursula Hoffmann (WLB Stuttgart) speziell für den Bereich der Zeitschriften anstellte. Betroffen sind dabei sowohl allgemeine Prinzipien als auch unzählige Details' so banal diese oft auch erscheinen mögen. Dabei sind die nach dem einen Regelwerk erstellten Titelaufnahmen nicht besser' oder 'schlechter' als die anderen - sie sind einfach 'anders'. Klar wurde freilich auch' dass die Frage RAK oder AACR?' die Thematik in unzulässiger Weise verkürzt. Die beiden Systeme muss man sich vielmehr als Endpunkte auf einer Skala vorstellen' zwischen denen vielerlei Varianten denkbar sind. Schon die Ergebnisse der bisherigen RAK2-Arbeit, die Monika Münnich (UB Heidelberg) vorstellte' sind beeindruckend. Mancher Zuhörer staunte ob der keineswegs zaghaften Einschnitte der Entwickler hin zu einem schlanken' modernen und international kompatiblen Regelwerk. Auch für die nächsten Schritte gibt es konkrete Überlegungen. Anzustreben ist dabei - wie Frau Münnich erläuterte - vor allem die Angleichung der sogenannten 'Entitäten': Es geht also nicht um Gleichmacherei an der Oberfläche (z. B. durch identische Ansetzungen)' sondern um strukturelle Anpassungen' die eine entsprechende 'Übersetzung' vom einen ins andere System ermöglichen (z. B. über virtuelle Normdateien). Die Umsetzung solcher Ideen in die Praxis dürfte freilich nicht immer einfach sein: Als besonderer Knackpunkt entpuppte sich die Individualisierung von Autorennamen, die einige Teilnehmer für zu aufwändig hielten. Einigkeit hingegen herrschte darüber' dass die Arbeit an den RAK2 schnellstmöglich wieder aufgenommen werden müsse - und zwar nicht nur bei besonders dringlichen Punkten (wie es der Beschluss vom 6. Dezember vorsieht)' sondern mit voller Kraft.

4.5370017E-4 = product of:
  0.003175901 = sum of:
    0.003175901 = product of:
      0.015879504 = sum of:
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=3401,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

What are these two Beowulf translations "expressions" of? I used the term work above, an even more abstract concept in the FRBR model. In this case, the "work" is Beowulf , that ancient intellectual creation or effort that over time has been expressed in multiple ways, each manifested in several different ways itself, with one or more items in each manifestation. This is a pretty gross oversimplification of FRBR, which also details other relationships: among these entities; between these entities and various persons (such as creators, publishers, and owners); and between these entities and their subjects. It also specifies characteristics, or "attributes," of the different types of entities (such as title, physical media, date, availability, and more.). But it should be enough to grasp the possibilities. Now apply it Imagine that you have a patron who needs a copy of Heaney's translation of Beowulf . She doesn't care who published it or when, only that it's Heaney's translation. What if you (or your patron) could place an interlibrary loan call on that expression, instead of looking through multiple bibliographic records (as of March, OCLC's WorldCat had nine regular print editions) for multiple manifestations and then judging which record is the best bet on which to place a request? Combine that with functionality that lets you specify "not Braille, not large print," and it could save you time. Now imagine a patron in want of a copy, any copy, in English, of Romeo and Juliet. Saving staff time means saving money. Whether or not this actually happens depends upon what the library community decides to do with FRBR. It is not a set of cataloging rules or a system design, but it can influence both. Several library system vendors are working with FRBR ideas; VTLS's current integrated library system product Virtua incorporates FRBR concepts in its design. More vendors may follow. How the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules develops the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) to incorporate FRBR will necessarily be a strong determinant of how records work in a "FRBR-ized" bibliographic database.
National FRBR experiments The larger the bibliographic database, the greater the effect of "FRBR-like" design in reducing the appearance of duplicate records. LC, RLG, and OCLC, all influenced by FRBR, are experimenting with the redesign of their databases. LC's Network Development and MARC Standards Office has posted at its web site the results of some of its investigations into FRBR and MARC, including possible display options for bibliographic information. The design of RLG's public catalog, RedLightGreen, has been described as "FRBR-ish" by Merrilee Proffitt, RLG's program officer. If you try a search for a prolific author or much-published title in RedLightGreen, you'll probably find that the display of search results is much different than what you would expect. OCLC Research has developed a prototype "frbrized" database for fiction, OCLC FictionFinder. Try a title search for a classic title like Romeo and Juliet and observe that OCLC includes, in the initial display of results (described as "works"), a graphic indicator (stars, ranging from one to five). These show in rough terms how many libraries own the work-Romeo and Juliet clearly gets a five. Indicators like this are something resource sharing staff can consider an "ILL quality rating." If you're intrigued by FRBR's possibilities and what they could mean to resource sharing workflow, start talking. Now is the time to connect with colleagues, your local and/or consortial system vendor, RLG, OCLC, and your professional organizations. Have input into how systems develop in the FRBR world."

4.5370017E-4 = product of:
  0.003175901 = sum of:
    0.003175901 = product of:
      0.015879504 = sum of:
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 4509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=4509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 4509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4509)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Key Features - Relates theory to practice and is written in an easy-to-read style - Includes guidance an subject cataloguing as well as descriptive cataloguing - Covers the use of ISBD and Dublin Core in descriptive cataloguing, rather than being tied exclusively to using AACR - Covers the principles of subject cataloguing, a topic which most non-librarians believe to be an integral part of cataloguing - Not only does the book describe the hows of cataloguing but goes a stage further by explaining why one might want to catalogue a particular item in a certain way The Author Jane Read has over 13 years' experience in academic libraries. She works as a cataloguing officer for The Higher Education Academy. Readership Librarians and informational professionals responsible for cataloguing materials (of any format). Knowledge managers will also find the book of interest. Contents Why bother to catalogue - what is a catalogue for, anticipating user needs, convincing your boss it is important What to catalogue -writing a cataloguing policy, what a catalogue record contains, the politics of cataloguing Who should catalogue - how long does it take to catalogue a book, skill sets needed, appropriate levels of staffing, organising time How to catalogue and not reinvent the wherl - choosing a records management system, international standards (AACR/MARC, ISBD, Dublin Core), subject cataloguing, and authority control Is it a book, is it a journal - distinguishing between formats, the'awkward squad', loose-leaf files, websites and skeletons What's a strange attractor? Cataloguing subjects you know nothing about -finding the right subject headings, verifying your information ki an ne lit pas le francais: unkriown languages and how to deal with them - what language is it, transcribing non-Roman alphabets, understanding the subject Special cases - rare books and archival collections, children's books, electronic media Resources for cataloguers - reference books, online discussion lists, conferences, bibliography

4.5370017E-4 = product of:
  0.003175901 = sum of:
    0.003175901 = product of:
      0.015879504 = sum of:
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

4.1850194E-4 = product of:
  0.0029295133 = sum of:
    0.0029295133 = product of:
      0.014647567 = sum of:
        0.014647567 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014647567 = score(doc=2190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2190)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Als weiterer Bestandteil des neuen Programms wurde ein Großteil des Programms der früheren Core Activity Universal Dataflow and Telecommunications (UDT) übernommen. UDT unterstützte die Analyse und die Förderung von Technologien und Standards, sofern sie der Interoperabilität dienen und sich auf die digitale Umgebung im Bereich der vernetzten Suche von Ressourcen, des Information Retrieval, der Digitalisierung und Metadaten beziehen. UDT arbeitete verbandsweit mit den Sections und Programmes der IFLA zusammen, unterstützte aber besonders die fachlichen Aktivitäten der Information Technology Section. Von seinen Anfängen in den späten 80er-Jahren bis zu seiner Schließung war das Programm an der National Library of Canada (NLC) angesiedelt. UDT entwickelte und pflegte später auch das erste Kommunikationstool der IFLA, IFLANET, das viele Jahre an der NLC gehostet wurde. IFLANET wurde zum Institut de ['Information Scientifique et Technique (INIST) in Frankreich transferiert und ist nicht Bestandteil von ICABS.

3.9698763E-4 = product of:
  0.0027789134 = sum of:
    0.0027789134 = product of:
      0.013894566 = sum of:
        0.013894566 = weight(_text_:system in 5183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013894566 = score(doc=5183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.1217929 = fieldWeight in 5183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5183)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

- Neues von den Mitgliedern (in Auswahl, Stand: April 2006) - - Bibliotheksverbund Bayern (BVB) / Verbundzentrale - - - Erweiterung des ALEPH-Einsatzes - - - Catalogue Enrichment ADAM - - - CD-ROM-Server - - - InfoGuide - - - Application Service Providing (ASP) - - Bibliotheksservice-Zentrum Baden-Württemberg (BSZ) - - - SWB-Verbunddatenbank - - - Catalogue Enrichment - - - OPUS - - - Internetportal für Bibliotheken, Archive und Museen (BAM) - - - Metadatenverwaltung für den Verteilten Dokumentenserver (VDS) - - - Virtuelle Auskunft mit drei Partnerbibliotheken eröffnet - - Die Deutsche Bibliothek - - - DissOnline Portal - - - DissOnline Tutor - - - CrissCross Ziel des Projektes CrissCross ist es, ein multilinguales, thesaurusbasiertes und benutzergerechtes Recherchevokabular zu schaffen. Hierzu werden die Sachschlagwörter der Schlagwortnormdatei (SWD) mit den Notationen der Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation (DDC) verbunden. Die Multilingualität wird durch die Verknüpfung mit ihren Äquivalenten in den beiden umfassenden Schlagwortnormdateien Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) und Rameau erreicht. Dabei wird auf den Ergebnissen des MACS-Projektes aufgebaut. Dem Nutzer wird so der Zugang zu heterogen erschlossenen Dokumenten ermöglicht, ohne dass er die Regeln des jeweiligen nationalen oder internationalen Erschließungsinstrumentes kennen muss. Projektpartner sind die Fakultät für Informations- und Kommunikationswissenschaften der Fachhochschule Köln und Die Deutsche Bibliothek. Das Projekt hat am 1. Februar 2006 begonnen und soll Ende Januar 2008 abgeschlossen sein. Technisch wird das Projekt im PICA/Iltis-System Der Deutschen Bibliothek und in der Arbeitsumgebung für die DDC "MelvilClass" realisiert. - - - DDC-vascoda

3.4027512E-4 = product of:
  0.0023819257 = sum of:
    0.0023819257 = product of:
      0.011909628 = sum of:
        0.011909628 = weight(_text_:system in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011909628 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.104393914 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

3.1387643E-4 = product of:
  0.002197135 = sum of:
    0.002197135 = product of:
      0.010985675 = sum of:
        0.010985675 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010985675 = score(doc=1675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.10026272 = fieldWeight in 1675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1675)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

2.9592554E-4 = product of:
  0.0020714786 = sum of:
    0.0020714786 = product of:
      0.010357393 = sum of:
        0.010357393 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010357393 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.09452859 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems

Subject

Information storage and retrieval systems

2.6156372E-4 = product of:
  0.001830946 = sum of:
    0.001830946 = product of:
      0.00915473 = sum of:
        0.00915473 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00915473 = score(doc=3147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 3147, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3147)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Die Arbeitsgruppe hat nach erfolgreicher Arbeit Richtlinien für Nationalbibliografien vorgelegt, die sich an den neuen Nutzeranforderungen und nach den Erfordernissen einer digitalen Umgebung ausrichten und damit sowohl den konventionellen als auch den - nicht mehr ganz so - neuen Medien gerecht werden. "From FRBR to FRAD: Extending the model" war der Titel des Vortrags von Glenn Patton (OCLC), der über die Arbeit der IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) berichtete. Die Aufgabe der Arbeitsgruppe bestand darin, das Modell der FRBR auf Normdaten auszuweiten. Das Ergebnis, die FRAD, ist kürzlich in gedruckter Form erschienen. Die Inhalte dieses konzeptionellen Modells für Normdaten sind bereits als Grundlagen im Statement of International Cataloguing Principles sowie dem neuen Regelwerk Resource Description and Access (RDA) enthalten. Den Abschluss der Veranstaltung bildete der Beitrag "Guidelines for Multilingual Thesauri: a new contribution to multilingual access and retrieval standards" von Patrice Landry (Schweizer Nationalbibliothek), der von 2006 bis 2008 die Working Group on Guidelines for Multilingual Thesauri leitete. In dem Vortrag wurden die Entstehungsgeschichte sowie die wichtigsten Inhalte der Publikation vorgestellt, die 2009 in der Serie der IFLA Professional Reports veröffentlicht wurde. Damit wurden in diesem Jahr insgesamt vier wichtige IFLA-Publikationen publiziert, die aus der Arbeit der Division und ihrer Sektionen entstanden sind. An dieser Stelle sei darauf hingewiesen, dass alle diese in Printform erschienen IFLA-Richtlinien oder Empfehlungen nach etwa sechs Monaten auch frei im IFLAnet verfügbar sein werden.