Search (368 results, page 2 of 19)

0.020749755 = product of:
  0.04149951 = sum of:
    0.04149951 = sum of:
      0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040592253 = score(doc=2603,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2603, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2603)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=2603,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2603, 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=2603)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.020074995 = product of:
  0.04014999 = sum of:
    0.04014999 = sum of:
      0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00894975 = score(doc=1903,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1903, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1903)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1903) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=1903,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1903, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1903)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Teaching cataloguing requires the instructor to make strategic decisions about how to approach the variety and complexity of the field and to provide an adequate theoretical foundation while preparing students for their entry into the world of practice. Accompanying these challenges are the tactical demands of providing this instruction in a distance education environment. Rather than focusing on ways to support learners in catalogue record production, instructors may use a problem solving and decision making approach to instruction. In this paper, a way to conceptualize a decision making approach that builds on a foundation provided by theories of information navigation is described. This approach, which is called "wayfinding", teaches by having students learn to find their way in the sets of rules that are commonly used. The method focuses on instruction about the structural features of rule sets, providing basic definitions of what each of the "places" in the rule sets contain (e.g., "formatting personal names" in Chapter 22 of AACR2R) and about ways to navigate those structures, enabling students to learn not only about common rules but also about less well known cataloguing practices ("dragons"). It provides both pragmatic and pedagogical benefits and helps develop links between cataloguing practices and their theoretical foundations.

Type

a

0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=2786,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book looks at the ways that we define the things of the bibliographic world, and in particular how our bibliographic models reflect our technology and the assumed goals of libraries. There is, of course, a history behind this, as well as a present and a future. The first part of the book begins by looking at the concept of the 'work' in library cataloging theory, and how that concept has evolved since the mid-nineteenth century to date. Next it talks about models and technology, two areas that need to be understood before taking a long look at where we are today. It then examines the new bibliographic model called Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the technical and social goals that the FRBR Study Group was tasked to address. The FRBR entities are analyzed in some detail. Finally, FRBR as an entity-relation model is compared to a small set of Semantic Web vocabularies that can be seen as variants of the multi-entity bibliographic model that FRBR introduced.

Date

12. 2.2016 16:22:58

0.01974305 = product of:
  0.0394861 = sum of:
    0.0394861 = sum of:
      0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008285859 = score(doc=2937,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2937, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2937)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=2937,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2937, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2937)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In authorship attribution, various distance-based metrics have been proposed to determine the most probable author of a disputed text. In this paradigm, a distance is computed between each author profile and the query text. These values are then employed only to rank the possible authors. In this article, we analyze their distribution and show that we can model it as a mixture of 2 Beta distributions. Based on this finding, we demonstrate how we can derive a more accurate probability that the closest author is, in fact, the real author. To evaluate this approach, we have chosen 4 authorship attribution methods (Burrows' Delta, Kullback-Leibler divergence, Labbé's intertextual distance, and the naïve Bayes). As the first test collection, we have downloaded 224 State of the Union addresses (from 1790 to 2014) delivered by 41 U.S. presidents. The second test collection is formed by the Federalist Papers. The evaluations indicate that the accuracy rate of some authorship decisions can be improved. The suggested method can signal that the proposed assignment should be interpreted as possible, without strong certainty. Being able to quantify the certainty associated with an authorship decision can be a useful component when important decisions must be taken.

Date

7. 5.2016 21:22:27

Type

a

0.0033657318 = product of:
  0.0067314636 = sum of:
    0.0067314636 = product of:
      0.013462927 = sum of:
        0.013462927 = weight(_text_:a in 1912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013462927 = score(doc=1912,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25351265 = fieldWeight in 1912, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1912)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I discuss the concept of Item as stated by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) in the conceptual model Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the object-oriented version of it (FRBRoo). Using object-oriented modeling techniques I analyze the relationship of the Item with the Manifestation entity, the concept of Document, and the physical object as a Carrier of a Content. A class scheme is proposed, not only as an implementation example, but as a way of clarifying some bibliographic concepts as well.We discusses the concept of Item as stated by IFLA in the conceptual model FRBR and the object oriented version of it (FRBRoo). Using object oriented modelling techniques we analize the relationship of the Item with the Manifestation entity, the concept of Document and the physical object as a Carrier of a Content. A class scheme is proposed, not only as an implementation example, but as a way of clarify some bibliographic concepts as well.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Type

a

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 1916) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=1916,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 1916, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1916)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In FRBR and FRAD, realization of a musical work through performance is unambiguously included as a type of expression when it involves music in the Western canon. There is room for interpretation, however, as to whether an improvisation in jazz or rock constitutes an expression, or a new work with each performance. Multiple expressions, particularly transcriptions, and related works suggest the potential usefulness of treating a jazz performance as a work. This article examines the question of boundaries between one work and another, and illustrates ways that the FRBR model might be applied to cataloging improvisations.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Type

a

0.0033143433 = product of:
  0.0066286866 = sum of:
    0.0066286866 = product of:
      0.013257373 = sum of:
        0.013257373 = weight(_text_:a in 1908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013257373 = score(doc=1908,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 1908, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1908)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A description of a FRBR implementation by VTLS Inc. The basic cataloging and searching functions are described, followed by a description of how VTLS has extended FRBR to handle recursive, or related, works and aggregates. The benefits to the requesting function of the Circulation subsystem are also provided.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Type

a

0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=1907,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The library catalog as a catalog of works was an infectious idea, which together with research led to reconceptualization in the form of the FRBR conceptual model. Two categories of lacunae emerge-the expression entity, and gaps in the model such as aggregates and dynamic documents. Evidence needed to extend the FRBR model is available in contemporary research on instantiation. The challenge for the bibliographic community is to begin to think of FRBR as a form of knowledge organization system, adding a final dimension to classification. The papers in the present volume offer a compendium of the promise of the FRBR model.

Content

Introduction to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Type

a

0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 1909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=1909,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 1909, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

FRBRizing legacy data has been a subject to research since the FRBR model was published in 1998. Studies were mainly conducted for MARC21, but in Austria MAB2, a data format based on the rules for descriptive cataloguing in academic libraries, mainly in Germany and Austria, is still in use. The implementation of Primo, an Ex Libris software, made research in FRBRizing MAB2 records necessary as Primo offers the possibility of building FRBR-groups by clustering different manifestations of a work. The first steps of FRBRizing bibliographic records in MAB2 at the Vienna University Library and the challenges in this context are highlighted in this paper.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Location

A

Type

a

0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=1919,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries face a double challenge in the digital age: both the describing framework and the describing object are under change. FRBR attempts to generate a coherent theory and yield a new Paradigm of cataloging. This study deploys current conceptualizations of the FRBR Group 1 entities within the FRBR models family with a view to semantic interoperability. FRBR cannot be considered as simple metadata describing a specific resource but more like some kind of knowledge related to the resource. This study reveals that there are different perspectives of what is introduced by FRBR as the cataloging object in the context of various interpretations of the model, namely RDA, FRBRization projects and FRBRoo.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Type

a

0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 2370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=2370,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 2370, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines the limited literature about ethics of cataloging in order to elucidate the kind of situations catalogers face with minimal ethical guidance, and the questions those situations raise for the profession. Existing codes of ethics for library staff offer only peripheral guidelines for catalogers, leaving them adrift when ethical issues arise. Ultimately the lack of a clear code of ethics for information organization reinforces existing mystification around the role of catalogers within the library and causes difficulty in justifying decisions to supervisors and administrators. While ALA has a professionally accepted code of ethics, and ALCTS has a supplement to it, these codes are inadequate to clarify and guide cataloging work. Two vastly different approaches to a code of ethics for catalogers are considered for both their strengths and weaknesses. The author will make recommendations about what a code of ethics for catalogers should include, and who should be responsible for creating a new code for the profession.

Type

a

0.0030444188 = product of:
  0.0060888375 = sum of:
    0.0060888375 = product of:
      0.012177675 = sum of:
        0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 2884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012177675 = score(doc=2884,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 2884, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2884)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.0030255679 = product of:
  0.0060511357 = sum of:
    0.0060511357 = product of:
      0.012102271 = sum of:
        0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 1922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012102271 = score(doc=1922,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 1922, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1922)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article summarizes a presentation on RDA given at the Reaching Forward conference in Rosemont, Illinois, in May 2011. The presenters felt that, with all that has been written about RDA, a look at practical considerations would be welcome. After a brief look at the historical background and the reasons for developing a new code, the presentation focused on some notable differences between AACR2 and RDA in structure, terminology, the treatment of certain classes of access points, and various aspects of description as reflected in bibliographic records.

Type

a

0.0030255679 = product of:
  0.0060511357 = sum of:
    0.0060511357 = product of:
      0.012102271 = sum of:
        0.012102271 = weight(_text_:a in 1975) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012102271 = score(doc=1975,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 1975, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1975)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Transmedia is a technique of telling a single narrative or creating a continuous imaginary world across multiple media platforms. The article seeks to explore this emerging phenomenon in terms of bibliographic organization. It analyzes transmedia features in the context of bibliographic entities and relationships, particularly those outlined in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records FRBR and FRBROO (object-oriented redefinition) conceptual models.

Type

a

0.0029294936 = product of:
  0.005858987 = sum of:
    0.005858987 = product of:
      0.011717974 = sum of:
        0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 8920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011717974 = score(doc=8920,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 8920, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1877,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.

Type

a

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1923,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1923, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1923)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the characteristics of Canadian publications by analyzing their bibliographic relationships based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model. The study indicates frequencies of occurrence of work-to-work bibliographic relationships for manifestations published in 2009 and catalogued in the AMICUS online catalogue. The results show that approximately 4.4 percent of the 2009 bibliographic records in the AMICUS catalogue exhibit a work-to-work bibliographic relationship.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Type

a

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1938,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1938, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1938)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Library of Congress' Cataloging in Publication (CIP) Program has been in existence for forty years. During this time, the CIP Program has moved from a model where the Library of Congress created all pre-publication metadata for publishers to a partnership where other libraries share in the creation of metadata. This article documents the evolution of the Electronic Cataloging in Publication (ECIP) Cataloging Partnership Program. The ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program can be used as a model to leverage limited resources across libraries to the benefit of library users nationwide.

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue "Cataloging collaborations and partnerships"

Type

a

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1939,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1939, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes the project to build the initial International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) database by deploying the techniques used to develop the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF). It focuses particularly on the work of the OCLC team in transforming the VIAF "resource file" model of matched data into a robust, operational, and authoritative file of uniquely assigned ISNIs as a base for an ongoing ISNI assignment system, and on the quality assurance validation of the database provided by the British Library and the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The need for future interaction between ongoing ISNI assignment and name authority control in libraries is also explored.

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue "Cataloging collaborations and partnerships"

Type

a

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1959,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1959, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides a representative overview of literature related to the idea of replacing MARC with a linked-data metadata structure, covering the period from 2002 through the 2012 release of the draft of the proposed bibliographic framework, BIBFRAME. Works proposing the replacement of MARC or exploring linked data in a library context are examined. In particular, key documents leading to the creation of the Library of Congress Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative are examined, along with some of the critical responses they received, to better understand the chain of ideas shaping BIBFRAME.

Type

a