Search (306 results, page 2 of 16)

0.012508754 = product of:
  0.05628939 = sum of:
    0.010584532 = weight(_text_:of in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010584532 = score(doc=2288,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
    0.045704857 = weight(_text_:systems in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045704857 = score(doc=2288,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Bibliographic data is used to describe resources held in the collections of libraries, archives and museums. That data is mostly available on the Web today and mostly as linked data. Also on the Web are the controlled vocabulary systems of name authority files, like the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), classification systems, and subject terms. These systems offer their own linked data to potentially help users find the information they want - whether at their local library or anywhere in the world that is willing to make their resources available. We have found it beneficial to merge authority data for names on a global level, as the entities are relatively clear. That is not true for subject concepts and terminology that have categorisation systems developed according to varying principles and schemes and are in multiple languages. Rather than requiring everyone in the world to use the same categorisation/classification system in the same language, we know that the Web offers us the opportunity to add descriptors assigned around the world using multiple systems from multiple perspectives to identify our resources. Those descriptors add value to refine searches, help users worldwide and share globally what each library does locally.

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.011700021 = product of:
  0.052650094 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 4378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=4378,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 4378, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4378)
    0.034687545 = weight(_text_:systems in 4378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034687545 = score(doc=4378,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 4378, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4378)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

In 1998, the FRBR model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) was developed under the auspices of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). The library domain finally developed its conceptual model of the bibliographic universe and thus the basis for the development of novel bibliographic information systems. In 2017, the IFLA Library Reference Model (Riva, LeBoeuf and Zumer 2017) was formally accepted as an IFLA standard. The FRBR family of models as well as LRM all start from the user tasks that need to be enabled and supported by bibliographic information systems. The consolidation process included a detailed analysis of all entities, attributes and relationships defined by the FRBR family. In this paper, the main features of the model are presented and described. With IFLA LRM, we finally have a modern model, compatible with the semantic web.

0.011030885 = product of:
  0.049638983 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 1895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=1895,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1895, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1895)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 1895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=1895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1895)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The Physics-Astronomy-Mathematics Division Vendor Update Session at the Special Libraries Association 2010 Annual Conference in New Orleans had a panel of four representatives of organizations involved in author authority work. In my presentation I described the involvement of Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet in author authority work, from the hand work done with file cards in 1940 through the present day work combining computer systems and hand work. This paper is an expanded version of my comments.

0.010731114 = product of:
  0.048290014 = sum of:
    0.023762217 = weight(_text_:of in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023762217 = score(doc=3355,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 3355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=3355,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3355, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3355)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Resource description and discovery have been facilitated generally in two approaches, namely bibliographic control and metadata, which now may converge in response to current issues and challenges of providing subject access. Four categories of major issues and challenges in the provision of subject access to digital and non-digital resources are: 1) the advancement of new knowledge; 2) the fall of controlled vocabulary and the rise of natural language; 3) digitizing and networking the traditional catalogue systems; and 4) electronic publishing and the Internet. The creation of new knowledge and the debate about the use of natural language and controlled vocabulary as subject headings becomes even more intense in the digital and online environment. The third and fourth categories are conceived after the emergence of networked environments and the rapid expansion of electronic resources. Recognizing the convergence of metadata schemas and bibliographic control calls for adapting to the new environment by developing tools that exploit the strengths of both.

0.010715243 = product of:
  0.048218597 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 2957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=2957,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2957, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2957)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 2957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=2957,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2957, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2957)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper conjectures that standard archival descriptions are no longer efficient in order to answer to society needs, mainly in an intercultural perspective. After a brief evaluation of the peculiarities of cultural heritage different domain languages, the specific issues of archival descriptions are discussed, seeking the possible strategies - technological as well as cultural - valid to open to an integration of descriptive languages. A particular focus is proposed on RDA, an approach which shows to be the best candidate to harmonize the separate descriptions typical of archival domain and activating the potential informative integrations with any limitation of information environments and single content quality.

0.010526687 = product of:
  0.04737009 = sum of:
    0.014666359 = weight(_text_:of in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014666359 = score(doc=3554,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=3554,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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."

Content

Präsentation, anlässlich: Workshop on the Liber Conference 2016, 29th of June 2016 , Helsinki.

0.010392102 = product of:
  0.04676446 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 1482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=1482,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1482, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1482)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 1482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=1482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1482)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Research libraries have entered an era of discontinuous change-a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. Bibliographic control, cooperative cataloguing systems and library catalogues have been key assets in the research library service framework for supporting scholarship. This chapter examines these assets in the context of changing library collections, new metadata sources and methods, open access repositories, digital scholarship and the purposes of research libraries. Advocating a fundamental rethinking of the research library service framework, the chapter concludes with a call for research libraries to collectively consider new approaches that could strengthen their roles as essential contributors to emergent, network-level scholarly research infrastructures.

Source

Catalogue 2.0: the future of the library catalogue. Ed. by Sally Chambers

0.010324167 = product of:
  0.04645875 = sum of:
    0.017552461 = weight(_text_:of in 2879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017552461 = score(doc=2879,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2879, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2879)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 2879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=2879,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2879, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2879)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Purpose - Despite the importance of bibliographic information systems for discovering and exploring library resources, some of the core functionality that should be provided to support users in their information seeking process is still missing. Investigating these issues, the purpose of this paper is to design a solution that would fulfil the missing objectives. Design/methodology/approach - Building on the concepts of a work family, functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) and information visualization, the paper proposes a model and user interface design that could support a more efficient and user-friendly presentation and navigation in bibliographic information systems. Findings - The proposed design brings together all versions of a work, related works, and other works by and about the author and shows how the model was implemented into a FrbrVis prototype system using hierarchical visualization layout. Research limitations/implications - Although issues related to discovery and exploration apply to various material types, the research first focused on works of fiction and was also limited by the selected sample of records. Practical implications - The model for presenting and interacting with FRBR-based data can serve as a good starting point for future developments and implementations. Originality/value - With FRBR concepts being gradually integrated into cataloguing rules, formats, and various bibliographic services, one of the important questions that has not really been investigated and studied is how the new type of data would be presented to users in a way that would exploit the true potential of the changes.

Source

Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.3, S.490-526

0.010040707 = product of:
  0.04518318 = sum of:
    0.016567415 = weight(_text_:of in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016567415 = score(doc=5184,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Conceptual modeling of bibliographic data, including the FR models and the consolidated IFLA LRM, has provided an opportunity to shift focus to entities and relationships and to support hierarchical work-based exploration of bibliographic information. This paper reports on a study examining the complexity of a work's bibliographic family data and user interactions with data visualizations, compared to traditional displays. Findings suggest that the FRBR-based visual bibliographic information system supports work families of different complexities more equally than a traditional system. Differences between the two systems also show that the FRBR-based system was more effective especially for related-works and author-related tasks.

0.009928614 = product of:
  0.044678763 = sum of:
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=1901,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=1901,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article presents a conceptual framework for library name authority control, including methods for disambiguating agents that share the same name and for collocating works of agents who use multiple names. It then discusses the identifier solutions tried or proposed in the library community for name authority control, analyzes the various identity management systems emerging outside of the library community, and envisions future trends in name authority control.

0.009750018 = product of:
  0.04387508 = sum of:
    0.014968789 = weight(_text_:of in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014968789 = score(doc=4247,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=4247,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Purpose Considerable effort is devoted to developing new models for organizing bibliographic metadata. However, such models have been repeatedly criticized for their lack of proper user testing. The purpose of this paper is to present a study on how non-experts in bibliographic systems map the bibliographic universe and, in particular, how they conceptualize relationships between independent but strongly related entities. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on an open concept-mapping task performed to externalize the conceptualizations of 98 novice students. The conceptualizations of the resulting concept maps are identified and analyzed statistically. Findings The study shows that the participants' conceptualizations have great variety, differing in detail and granularity. These conceptualizations can be categorized into two main groups according to derivative relationships: those that apply a single-entity model directly relating document entities and those (the majority) that apply a multi-entity model relating documents through a high-level collocating node. These high-level nodes seem to be most adequately interpreted either as superwork devices collocating documents belonging to the same bibliographic family or as devices collocating documents belonging to a shared fictional world. Originality/value The findings can guide the work to develop bibliographic standards. Based on the diversity of the conceptualizations, the findings also emphasize the need for more user testing of both conceptual models and the bibliographic end-user systems implementing those models.

Source

Journal of documentation. 74(2018) no.4, S.894-916

0.009689082 = product of:
  0.04360087 = sum of:
    0.016351866 = weight(_text_:systems in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016351866 = score(doc=2839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
    0.027249003 = weight(_text_:software in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027249003 = score(doc=2839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17532499 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Das internationale ORCID-Konsortium vernetzt Publizierende mit ihren Aufsätzen und Forschungsdaten über eine eindeutige ID. Weltweit besitzen bereits über 2 Millionen Forschende eine solche Kennung. Um ORCID in Deutschland zu fördern, wurde das Projektvorhaben "ORCID DE - Förderung der Open Researcher and Contributor ID in Deutschland" gebildet. Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) hat die Förderung des auf drei Jahre angelegten Projekts im Februar 2016 bewilligt. Durch die Integration in über 230 digitale Informationsinfrastrukturen erleichtert die Open Researcher and Contributor ID, kurz ORCID, die Pflege der Publikationsliste für Forscherinnen und Forscher. Die Idee dahinter ist folgende: Jede Person, die im wissenschaftlichen Arbeitsprozess einen Beitrag leistet, kann sich über die eindeutige ORCID-Kennung mit ihren Publikationen, Forschungsdaten und anderen Produkten des Forschungsprozesses (zum Beispiel Software) eindeutig vernetzen. Damit werden diese Objekte sichtbar und technisch verlässlich mit ihren Erschafferinnen und Erschaffern verbunden. ORCID bietet das Potenzial, bisher verteilte Informationen standardisiert zusammenzuführen und damit einen Überblick auf die Forschungsleistung von Forschenden zu ermöglichen. Durch die Offenheit des Systems und des großen internationalen Konsortiums ist ORCID auf dem Weg, ein langfristig gültiger Identifikator im wissenschaftlichen Alltag zu werden.

0.009652025 = product of:
  0.043434113 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 1976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=1976,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1976, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1976)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 1976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=1976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1976, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1976)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

As the amount of research data management is growing, the use of identity metadata for discovering, linking, and citing research data is growing too. To support the awareness of different identifier systems and the comparison and selection of an identifier for a particular data management environment, there is need for a knowledge base. This article contributes to that goal and analyzes the data management and related literatures to develop a data identifier taxonomy. The taxonomy includes four categories (domain, entity types, activities, and quality dimensions). In addition, the article describes 14 identifiers referenced in the literature and analyzes them along the taxonomy.

0.009652025 = product of:
  0.043434113 = sum of:
    0.014818345 = weight(_text_:of in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014818345 = score(doc=1994,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 1994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=1994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1994)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The National Library of Australia was among national libraries who implemented Resource Description and Access (RDA) in early 2013. RMIT University in Melbourne chose to implement with the National Library, despite an upcoming migration from a Voyager Integrated Library Management System (ILMS) to Alma library services platform. This article describes the experience of RMIT in implementing RDA while also investing resources in a systems change. It addresses staff training, policy development, and processes to automate the conversion of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) records. It includes lessons learned as advice to institutions who have yet to implement RDA.

0.009589136 = product of:
  0.04315111 = sum of:
    0.024573447 = weight(_text_:of in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024573447 = score(doc=2592,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

In June 2009, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group established the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control to address recommendation 5.1.1.1 of On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, which focused on developing measures for costs, benefits, and value of bibliographic control. This paper outlines results of that task force's efforts to develop and articulate metrics for evaluating the cost and value of cataloging activities specifically, and offers some next steps that the community could take to further the profession's collective understanding of the costs and values associated with bibliographic control.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.00953518 = product of:
  0.04290831 = sum of:
    0.0140020205 = weight(_text_:of in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140020205 = score(doc=2808,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=2808,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to consider the nature of community information (CI) and proposes a data model, based on the entity-relationship approach adopted in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), which may assist with the development of future metadata standards for CI systems. Design/methodology/approach - The two main data structure standards for CI, namely the element set developed by the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS) and the MARC21 Format for CI, are compared by means of a mapping exercise, after which an entity-relationship data model is constructed, at a conceptual level, based on the definitions of CI found in the literature. Findings - The AIRS and MARC21 data structures converge to a fair degree, with MARC21 providing for additional detail in several areas. However, neither structure is systematically and unambiguously defined, suggesting the need for a data model. An entity-relationship data modelling approach, similar to that taken in FRBR, yielded a model that could be used as the basis for future standards development and research. It was found to effectively cover both the AIRS and MARC21 element sets. Originality/value - No explicit data model exists for CI, and there has been little discussion reported about what data elements are required to support CI seeking.

Source

Journal of documentation. 72(2016) no.1, S.81-102

0.008942596 = product of:
  0.04024168 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=5312,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=5312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

A work is a deliberately created informing entity intended for communication. A work consists of abstract intellectual content that is distinct from any object that is its carrier. In library and information science, the importance of the work lies squarely with the problem of information retrieval. Works are mentefacts-intellectual (or mental) constructs that serve as artifacts of the cultures in which they arise. The meaning of a work is abstract at every level, from its creator's conception of it, to its reception and inherence by its consumers. Works are a kind of informing object and are subject to the phenomenon of instantiation, or realization over time. Research has indicated a base typology of instantiation. The problem for information retrieval is to simultaneously collocate and disambiguate large sets of instantiations. Cataloging and bibliographc tradition stipulate an alphabetico-classed arrangement of works based on an authorship principle. FRBR provided an entity-relationship schema for enhanced control of works in future catalogs, which has been incorporated into RDA. FRBRoo provides an empirically more precise model of work entities as informing objects and a schema for their representation in knowledge organization systems.

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

0.008907516 = product of:
  0.04008382 = sum of:
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=2883,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
    0.0245278 = weight(_text_:systems in 2883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0245278 = score(doc=2883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2883)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Cataloging and metadata operations in academic libraries are focusing on original cataloging of their unique and hidden collections that have not been available to users because of a lack of metadata. However, creating MARC format metadata is an expensive process; libraries need professional catalogers with appropriate experience and knowledge or must train staff to do the work. To improve the cataloging and metadata creation workflow, the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign Library developed a web application, Metadata Maker, which allows anyone to create metadata in four different formats, including MARC21 for an online public access catalog, regardless of their familiarity with metadata standards or systems that utilize the metadata. Released as an open source application, Metadata Maker supports diacritics and Unicode non-Roman language encoding, and creates metadata records that ensure discovery and access of unique library collections.

0.008687538 = product of:
  0.03909392 = sum of:
    0.010478153 = weight(_text_:of in 1979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010478153 = score(doc=1979,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 1979, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1979)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 1979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=1979,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1979, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1979)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article describes a simple and innovative solution, for libraries using MARC-based Integrated Library Systems (ILS), to compensate for the removal of the General Material Designation (GMD) from individual Resource Description and Access (RDA) bibliographic records in public displays. The solution is both a textual and visual one, based on the development of a text/icon combination, with an icon generated from the MARC leader code for material type, and then associated with the text from MARC tag 338, Carrier Type. The solution will work for all Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules , Second Edition (AACR2) and hybrid records as well.

0.008687538 = product of:
  0.03909392 = sum of:
    0.010478153 = weight(_text_:of in 5704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010478153 = score(doc=5704,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 5704, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5704)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 5704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=5704,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5704, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5704)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The persistent identification of authors and contributors plays a decisive role within the Open Science landscape. The increasing number of published research products and new open publishing models and infrastructures requires author identification which goes beyond fields or infrastructures and guarantees interoperability. ORCID iD is presented as a persistent identifier for researchers in this context. As information managers and organisers, many academic libraries have taken the lead in offering ORCID-related services and implementing it in their systems. This paper scans the implementation models across Europe and the actions carried out by libraries. Finally, it also depicts perspectives for integration in the Austrian library and research context.