Search (172 results, page 2 of 9)

0.005504963 = product of:
  0.038534738 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 1890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=1890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1890)
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 1890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=1890,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1890, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1890)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Library catalogs do not provide catalog users with the assistance they need to easily and confidently select the person they are interested in. Examples are provided of Web services that do a better job of helping information seekers differentiate the person they are seeking from those with similar names. Some of the reasons for this failure in library catalogs are examined. This article then looks at how much information is necessary to help users disambiguate names, how that information could be captured and shared, and some ways the information could be displayed in library catalogs.

0.005449971 = product of:
  0.038149796 = sum of:
    0.029588435 = weight(_text_:web in 1904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029588435 = score(doc=1904,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 1904, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1904)
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 1904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=1904,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1904, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1904)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Libraries and museums developed rules for the description of their collections prior to formalizing the underlying conceptualization reflected in such rules. That formalizing process took place in the 1990s and resulted in two independent conceptual models: FRBR for bibliographic information (published in 1998), and CIDOC CRM for museum information (developed from 1996 on, and issued as ISO standard 21127 in 2006). An international working group was formed in 2003 with the purpose of harmonizing these two models. The resulting model, FRBROO, was published in 2009. It is an extension to CIDOC CRM, using the formalism in which the former is written. It adds to FRBR the dynamic aspects of CIDOC CRM, and a number of refinements (e.g. in the definitions of Work and Manifestation). Some modifications were made in CIDOC CRM as well. FRBROO was developed with Semantic Web technologies in mind, and lends itself well to the Linked Data environment; but will it be used in that context?

Theme

Semantic Web

0.005194202 = product of:
  0.07271883 = sum of:
    0.07271883 = weight(_text_:wide in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07271883 = score(doc=2944,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5538448 = fieldWeight in 2944, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2944)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This issue of Jlis.it is focused on RDA, Resource Description and Access. In light of increasing international acceptance of this new cataloging content standard, the editors of Jlis.it wish to capture the background of how RDA came to be and the implications of its implementation at this time. This special issue offers a wide overview on the new guidelines from their making to their spreading around the world.

0.0050347717 = product of:
  0.0352434 = sum of:
    0.03019857 = weight(_text_:web in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03019857 = score(doc=2288,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.004825334 = product of:
  0.033777338 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
    0.009368123 = product of:
      0.028104367 = sum of:
        0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028104367 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.004730178 = product of:
  0.06622249 = sum of:
    0.06622249 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06622249 = score(doc=1023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.54432154 = fieldWeight in 1023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1023)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Handbuch Bibliothek: Geschichte, Aufgaben, Perspektiven. Hrsg.: Umlauf, K. u. S. Gradmann

0.0045768693 = product of:
  0.032038085 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=1955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
    0.023966359 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023966359 = score(doc=1955,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD models propose user tasks as a way to address and categorize functions that a catalog should support. The user tasks are not harmonized among these models, but to do that, they should first be fully understood and analyzed, especially "select" and "identify." We decided to look at the FRBR user tasks from the perspective of interactive information retrieval (IIR). Several IIR models were reviewed and Ellis' and Belkin's models were chosen for further analysis and interpretation of FRBR "select" and "identify" tasks.

0.0044959965 = product of:
  0.031471975 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.0044959965 = product of:
  0.031471975 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The reflection provoked by RDA produced the awareness that the flat format of MARC 21 records is inadequate in expressing the relationships between bibliographic entities that the FRBR model and RDA standard consider fundamental. RIMMF and BIBFRAME indicate to software developers a way to think that is consistent with RDA. In Italy, @Cult, a software house and bibliographic agency working for Casalini Libri, has taken on the charge of following and facilitating the transition: OliSuite/WeCat provides an implementation of RDA that integrates vocabularies and ontologies already present in the Web by structuring the information in linked open data.

0.0044959965 = product of:
  0.031471975 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

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

0.004478364 = product of:
  0.031348545 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=2786,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

Content

Part I. Work, model, technologyThe work -- The model -- The technology -- Part II. FRBR and other solutions -- Introduction -- FRBR : standard for international sharing -- The entity-relation model -- What is modeled in FRBR -- Does FRBR meet FRBR's objectives? -- Some issues that arise -- Bibliographic description and the Semantic Web.

Date

12. 2.2016 16:22:58

0.0044226884 = product of:
  0.030958816 = sum of:
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=1925,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
    0.020970564 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020970564 = score(doc=1925,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

A research project was conducted in which proper JAPAN/MARC bibliographic records for 158 major Japanese classical works were identified manually, since existing records contain little information about works included in the resources. This paper reports the detailed method used for work identification, including selecting works, obtaining the bibliographic records to be judged, and building the judgment criteria. The results of the work identification process are reported along with average numbers that indicate the characteristics of certain classics. The necessity of manual identification was justified through an evaluation of searches by author and/or title information in a conventional retrieval system.

0.004274482 = product of:
  0.029921371 = sum of:
    0.008737902 = weight(_text_:information in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008737902 = score(doc=5312,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
    0.021183468 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021183468 = score(doc=5312,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.004243123 = product of:
  0.029701859 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=5172,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=5172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.

0.0042119347 = product of:
  0.029483542 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 4378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=4378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4378, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4378)
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 4378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=4378,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4378, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4378)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.003941815 = product of:
  0.055185407 = sum of:
    0.055185407 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055185407 = score(doc=148,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.4536013 = fieldWeight in 148, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=148)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Series

Foyer: Öffentliche Bibliothek

0.003898619 = product of:
  0.054580662 = sum of:
    0.054580662 = weight(_text_:web in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054580662 = score(doc=1998,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5643819 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This article explores the question "What is an International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) resource in the context of the Semantic Web, and what is the relationship of its description to the linked data?" This question is discussed against the background of the dichotomy between the description and access using the Semantic Web differentiation of the three logical layers: real-world objects, web of data, and special purpose (bibliographic) data. The representation of bibliographic data as linked data is discussed, distinguishing the description of a resource from the iconic/objective and the informational/subjective viewpoints. In the conclusion, the authors give views on possible directions of future development of the ISBD.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.0038537113 = product of:
  0.026975978 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 2025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=2025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2025)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2025)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Evolving from database models using punch cards, strict linear relational databases and predefined object-oriented data structures, the triple statements underlying Semantic Web technologies bypass many design constraints to offer endless flexibility. Overcoming structure is challenging, especially the relatively recent structure formalized in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Though geared to easier access and interoperability and recognizing a multilevel bibliographic model, FRBR remains tied to translating entity-relation diagrams to data structures. Resource Description Framework (RDF) provides a more flexible way to express concepts, in which bibliographic models may be thought of as graphs of properties and relationships. But even RDF-based models can undermine that flexibility by mixing concept classes and data structures. The advantage of RDF classes is to provide semantics that enable a user to focus on similarities, not bound by contextual constraints.and success metrics.

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.30-33

0.0038537113 = product of:
  0.026975978 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 2773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=2773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2773)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2773)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

In response to libraries' frustration over their rich resources being invisible on the web, Zepheira, at the request of the Library of Congress, created BIBFRAME, a bibliographic metadata framework for cataloging. The model replaces MARC records with linked data, promoting resource visibility through a rich network of links. In place of formal taxonomies, a small but extensible vocabulary streamlines metadata efforts. Rather than using a unique bibliographic record to describe one item, BIBFRAME draws on the Dublin Core and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) to generate formalized descriptions of Work, Instance, Authority and Annotation as well as associations between items. Zepheira trains librarians to transform MARC records to BIBFRAME resources and adapt the vocabulary for specialized needs, while subject matter experts and technical experts manage content, site design and usability. With a different approach toward data modeling and metadata, previously invisible resources gain visibility through linking.

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.23-29

0.0036609212 = product of:
  0.051252894 = sum of:
    0.051252894 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 4161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051252894 = score(doc=4161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36573824 = fieldWeight in 4161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4161)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Form

Elektronische Dokumente