Search (368 results, page 3 of 19)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Koford, A.; Panchyshyn, R.S.: RDA display and the general material designation : an innovative solution (2014) 0.00 
    0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1979,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1979, 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=1979)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Footnote
    Eine Quelle gibt "A. Koford", eine andere "R.S. Panchyshyn" als alleinigen Verfasser an.
    Type
    a
  2. Howarth, L.C.: ISBD as bibliographic content standard : interweaving threads, contemplating a future ISBD as bibliographic content standard: interweaving threads, contemplating a future (2014) 0.00 
    0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1986,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1986, 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=1986)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This summary considers the final articles selected for the special issue, interweaving some common threads that bind them together in their consideration of the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), consolidated edition, 2011, as a bibliographic content standard. With discussions of (1) the historical and current evolution of the ISBD, (2) the concept of Universal Bibliographic Control relative to an emerging Semantic Web environment, (3) ISBD and national cataloging codes, and (4) the continuing challenges of "non-book" resources, as context, the article concludes by exploring the question, "Is there a future for the ISBD?"
    Footnote
    Contribution in a special issue "ISBD: The Bibliographic Content Standard "
    Type
    a
  3. McGrath, K.; Kules, B.; Fitzpatrick, C.: FRBR and facets provide flexible, work-centric access to items in library collections (2011) 0.00 
    0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=2430,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2430, 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=2430)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper explores a technique to improve searcher access to library collections by providing a faceted search interface built on a data model based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). The prototype provides a Workcentric view of a moving image collection that is integrated with bibliographic and holdings data. Two sets of facets address important user needs: "what do you want?" and "how/where do you want it?" enabling patrons to narrow, broaden and pivot across facet values instead of limiting them to the tree-structured hierarchy common with existing FRBR applications. The data model illustrates how FRBR is being adapted and applied beyond the traditional library catalog.
    Type
    a
  4. Conradt, V.; Hänger, C.; Klein, A.: ¬Die Anbindung von Alma an den SWB-Verbund am Beispiel der UB Mannheim (2016) 0.00 
    0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=2312,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Type
    a
  5. Zumer, M.; O'Neill, E.T.: Modeling aggregates in FRBR (2012) 0.00 
    0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 1913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=1913,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1913, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the bibliographic environment, the term aggregate is used to describe a bibliographic entity formed by combining distinct bibliographic units together. Aggregates are a large and growing class of information resources-up to twenty percent of the bibliographic records in OCLC's WorldCat may represent aggregates. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final Report only briefly references aggregates. Difficulties and inconsistencies in the application of the FRBR model to aggregates have been identified as a significant impediment to FRBR implementation. To address the issue, the FRBR Review Group established a Working Group on Aggregates which completed its charge and submitted its final report in 2011. The Working Group proposed that an aggregate be defined as a "manifestation embodying multiple distinct expressions". This paper examines the proposed definition and explores how aggregates can be modeled.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
    Type
    a
  6. Petrucciani, A.: RDA: a critical analysis based on cataloguing theory and practice (2016) 0.00 
    0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 2950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=2950,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2950, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    RDA appears to be an hybrid standard: a list containing a high number of bibliographic elements and a rewrite - more formal than substantial - of cataloguing practices established with AACR2. In this document, RDA guidelines are analysed trying to compare them to the requirements of good cataloguing rules. Cataloguing rules in general shold not be an abstract and self-referential model but an effective tool to analyse and represent cultural phenomena, useful to qualified staff and helpful in learning about users need. From this point of view, RDA is quite disappointing: many relevant and frequent cataloguing issues are not mentioned at all, and cataloguing itself is left without real guidelines. A certain number of omissions, mistakes and individual flawness in the text should be modified by RDA board with a deep analysis of real cataloguing activities.
    Type
    a
  7. Leresche, F.; Boulet, V.: RDA as a tool for the bibliographic transition : the French position (2016) 0.00 
    0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 2953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=2953,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2953, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2953)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article presents the process adopted by the France to bring library catalogs to the Web of data and the RDA role in this general strategy. After analising RDA limits and inconsistencies, inherited from the tradition of AACR and MARC21 catalogues, the authors present the French approach to RDA and its positioning in correlation to international standards like ISBD and FRBR. The method adopted in France for FRBRising the catalogues go through a technical work of creating alignment beteween existing data, exploiting the technologies applied to the creation of data.bnf.fr and through a revision of the French cataloguing rules, allowing FRBRised metadata creation. This revision is based on RDA and it is setting up a French RDA application profile, keeping the analysis on the greater differences. RDA adoption, actually, is not a crucial issue in France and not a self standing purpose; it is just a tool for the transition of bibliographic data towards the Web of data.
    Type
    a
  8. Theise, A.: Possibilities for standardized cataloging of prints : the collection of engravings at the Hamburg State and University Library (2016) 0.00 
    0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 5125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=5125,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5125, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    German museums keep over 5,000,000 graphic prints in their graphic collections from the late Middle Ages to the present. This figure comes from a survey of 2006: "Graphische Sammlungen," www.graphischesammlungen.de/index.php?view=detail&id=23 (accessed February 4, 2016). Due to the poor availability of data it is hard to ascertain how many additional sheets "slumber" in libraries and archives. Libraries often keep conglomerations of graphic sheets, which have grown over the centuries by bequests and donations, without being accessible in a systematic way for the users of a collection. Such a collection is the small but excellent collection of engravings at the Hamburg State and University Library. This article will propose how Resource Description and Access (RDA) can be adapted in such a way that our special graphic material can be made accessible and be used and how a standardized set of elements can be developed.
    Type
    a
  9. Taniguchi, S.: Understanding RDA as a DC application profile (2013) 0.00 
    0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=1906,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The applicability of Dublin Core Application Profiles (DCAP) and the Singapore Framework for DCAPs to Resource Description and Access (RDA) were assessed. First, a draft RDA application profile is outlined, which reveals their applicability to RDA as a whole. Then, the current situation and issues involved in defining and specifying the RDA vocabularies, description structures, and syntaxes, all of which form the RDA application profile, are reviewed, for four levels of the RDA description structure; that is, the levels of aggregates and components of statements.
    Type
    a
  10. Miller, E.; Ogbuji, U.: Linked data design for the visible library (2015) 0.00 
    0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 2773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=2773,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2773, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Footnote
    Contribution to a special section "Linked data and the charm of weak semantics".
    Type
    a
  11. Weinheimer, J.: ¬A visual explanation of the areas defined by AACR2, RDA, ISBD, LC NAF, LC Classification, LC Subject Headings, Dewey Classification, MARC21 : plus a quick look at ISO2709, MARCXML and a version of BIBFRAME (2015) 0.00 
    0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=2882,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This short publication was made for two reasons. First, to provide a simple way to help people understand a bit more precisely what is defined by RDA, AACR2, MARC format, and so on. In this way, when someone says that MARC, or AARC2, or ISBD should change, they will have a better idea of what each term does and does not pertain to. One record has been chosen at random and analysed in various ways. This publication is far from complete and does not pretend to teach anything, it only demonstrates. When someone talks about, e.g. MARC, all the reader needs to do is look at the colored areas to get an idea of what that means.
    Source
    http://blog.jweinheimer.net/wp-content/Ebooks/A%20visual%20explanation%20of%20the%20are%20-%20James%20Weinheimer.pdf
  12. Kocher, M.; Savoy, J.: ¬A simple and efficient algorithm for authorship verification (2017) 0.00 
    0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 3330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=3330,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3330, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3330)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper describes and evaluates an unsupervised and effective authorship verification model called Spatium-L1. As features, we suggest using the 200 most frequent terms of the disputed text (isolated words and punctuation symbols). Applying a simple distance measure and a set of impostors, we can determine whether or not the disputed text was written by the proposed author. Moreover, based on a simple rule we can define when there is enough evidence to propose an answer or when the attribution scheme is unable to make a decision with a high degree of certainty. Evaluations based on 6 test collections (PAN CLEF 2014 evaluation campaign) indicate that Spatium-L1 usually appears in the top 3 best verification systems, and on an aggregate measure, presents the best performance. The suggested strategy can be adapted without any problem to different Indo-European languages (such as English, Dutch, Spanish, and Greek) or genres (essay, novel, review, and newspaper article).
    Type
    a
  13. Edmunds, J.: Roadmap to nowhere : BIBFLOW, BIBFRAME, and linked data for libraries (2017) 0.00 
    0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=3523,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    On December 12, 2016, Carl Stahmer and MacKenzie Smith presented at the CNI Members Fall Meeting about the BIBFLOW project, self-described on Twitter as "a two-year project of the UC Davis University Library and Zepheira investigating the future of library technical services." In her opening remarks, Ms. Smith, University Librarian at UC Davis, stated that one of the goals of the project was to devise a roadmap "to get from where we are today, which is kind of the 1970s with a little lipstick on it, to 2020, which is where we're going to be very soon." The notion that where libraries are today is somehow behind the times is one of the commonly heard rationales behind a move to linked data. Stated more precisely: - Libraries devote considerable time and resources to producing high-quality bibliographic metadata - This metadata is stored in unconnected silos - This metadata is in a format (MARC) that is incompatible with technologies of the emerging Semantic Web - The visibility of library metadata is diminished as a result of the two points above Are these assertions true? If yes, is linked data the solution?
    Type
    a
  14. Pisanski, J.; Zumer, M.: Mental models of the bibliographic universe : part 2: comparison task and conclusions (2010) 0.00 
    0.0026742492 = product of:
  0.0053484985 = sum of:
    0.0053484985 = product of:
      0.010696997 = sum of:
        0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 4146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010696997 = score(doc=4146,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 4146, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4146)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The paper aims to provide some insight into mental models of the bibliographic universe and how they compare with functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) as a conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. Design/methodology/approach - To get a more complete picture of the mental models, different elicitation techniques were used. The three tasks of the paper were: card-sorting, concept mapping and comparison task. The paper deals with comparison task, which consisted of interviews and rankings, and provides a discussion of the results of the paper as a whole. Findings - Results of the ranking part of the comparison task confirm the findings of concept mapping task. In both cases, while there are individual differences between mental models, on average they gravitate towards FRBR. Research limitations/implications - This is a small study and it provides only a glimpse of the implications of using FRBR as a conceptual basis for cataloguing. More FRBR-related user studies are needed, including similar studies on different groups of individuals and different types of materials, as well as practical studies of user needs and user interfaces. Practical implications - The results of this study are the first user-tested indication of the validity of FRBR as a conceptual basis for the future of cataloguing. Originality/value - This is the first published paper of mental models of the bibliographic universe and uses a unique combination of mental model elicitation techniques.
    Type
    a
  15. Galeffi, A.; Sardo, A.L.: Cataloguing, a necessary evil : critical aspects of RDA (2016) 0.00 
    0.0026742492 = product of:
  0.0053484985 = sum of:
    0.0053484985 = product of:
      0.010696997 = sum of:
        0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010696997 = score(doc=2952,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Toolkit designed by the RDA Steering Committee makes Resource Description and Access available on the web, together with other useful documents (workflows, mappings, etc.). Reading, learning and memorizing are interconnected, and a working tool should make these activities faster and easier to perform. Some issues arise while verifying the real easiness of use and learning of the tool. The practical and formal requirements for a cataloguing code include plain language, ease of memorisation, clarity of instructions, familiarity for users, predictability and reproducibility of solutions, and general usability. From a formal point of view, the RDA text does not appear to be conceived for an uninterrupted reading, but just for reading of few paragraphs for temporary catalographic needs. From a content point of view, having a syndetic view of the description of a resource is rather difficult: catalographic details are scattered and their re-organization is not easy. The visualisation and logical organisation in the Toolkit could be improved: the table of contents occupies a sizable portion of the screen and resizing or hiding it is not easy; the indentation leaves little space to the words; inhomogeneous font styles (italic and bold) and poor contrast between background and text colours make reading not easy; simultaneous visualization of two or more parts of the text is not allowed; and Toolkit's icons are less intuitive than expected. In the conclusion, some suggestions on how to improve the Toolkit's aspects and usability are provided.
    Type
    a
  16. Willer, M.; Barbaric, A.: FRBR/FRAD and Eva Verona's cataloguing code : toward the fure development of the Croatian Cataloguing Code (2012) 0.00 
    0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 1910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=1910,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1910, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1910)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to research the feasibility of evolving Eva Verona's Code and Manual for Compiling Alphabetical Catalogues, the current Croatian cataloguing code, into a FRBR/FRAD structured code of rules, with the aim of assessing the direction to be taken toward development of the future national cataloguing rules. The methodology used is the mapping of conceptual models FRBR and FRAD entities, attributes and relationships to Verona's Code of rules.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
    Type
    a
  17. Petrucciani, A.: From the FRBR model to the Italian Cataloguing Code (and vice versa?) (2012) 0.00 
    0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 1920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=1920,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1920, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model has been the main framework of reference for the new Italian cataloging rules. The code puts the work at the center of the catalog and of the rules because users are mostly interested in works and the most wanted works are increasingly available in multiple manifestations. Every work should be identified in the catalog and responsibility relations should be recorded at the proper level. The code is tailored to the specific needs of library cataloging and based on a new thorough analysis of the phenomena to be reflected, organized, and made accessible via the catalog.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
    Type
    a
  18. Zhang, Y.; Salaba, A.: What do users tell us about FRBR-based catalogs? (2012) 0.00 
    0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 1924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=1924,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1924, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    FRBR user research has been the least addressed area in FRBR research and development. This article addresses the research gap in evaluating and designing catalogs based on FRBR user research. It draws from three user studies concerning FRBR-based catalogs: (1) user evaluation of three FRBR-based catalogs, (2) user participatory design of a prototype catalog based on the FRBR model, and (3) user evaluation of the resulting FRBR prototype catalog. The major findings from the user studies are highlighted and discussed for future development of FRBR-based catalogs that support various user tasks.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
    Type
    a
  19. Tokita, T.; Koto, M.; Miyata, Y.; Yokoyama, Y.; Taniguchi, S.; Ueda, S.: Identifying works for Japanese classics toward construction of FRBRized OPACs (2012) 0.00 
    0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 1925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=1925,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1925, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
    Type
    a
  20. Taniguchi, S.: Viewing RDA from FRBR and FRAD : does RDA represent a different conceptual model? (2012) 0.00 
    0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 1936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=1936,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1936, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Resource Description and Access (RDA) was analyzed through a comparison between the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) models and the model that RDA directly reflects. First, it was clarified that RDA adopts the FRBR entities but with some differences, such as the relationship between work and manifestation and the treatment of "title of the expression." Second, for the FRAD scope, a slightly different model that reflects RDA directly was proposed, incorporating the decomposition of FRAD entities as well as a new entity "description."
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

  • e 293
  • d 63
  • i 5
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 331
  • el 66
  • m 18
  • n 8
  • b 4
  • ag 2
  • s 2
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications