Search (335 results, page 16 of 17)

0.001106661 = product of:
  0.009959949 = sum of:
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 2937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=2937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2937, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2937)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

7. 5.2016 21:22:27

0.001106661 = product of:
  0.009959949 = sum of:
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5930, 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=5930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

11. 7.2020 13:22:58

0.001106661 = product of:
  0.009959949 = sum of:
    0.009959949 = product of:
      0.019919898 = sum of:
        0.019919898 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019919898 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

22. 1.2023 18:40:36

0.0010874257 = product of:
  0.009786831 = sum of:
    0.009786831 = product of:
      0.019573662 = sum of:
        0.019573662 = weight(_text_:web in 4668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019573662 = score(doc=4668,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 4668, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In den letzten Jahren wurde eine Vielzahl an Datensets aus Kultur- und Wissenschaftseinrichtungen als Linked Open Data veröffentlicht. Auch das deutsche Bibliothekswesen hat sich aktiv an den Entwicklungen im Bereich Linked Data beteiligt. Die zuvor lediglich in den Bibliothekskatalogen vorliegenden Daten können weiteren Sparten geöffnet und so auf vielfältige Weise in externe Anwendungen eingebunden werden. Gemeinsames Ziel bei der Veröffentlichung der Bibliotheksdaten als Linked Data ist außerdem, Interoperabilität und Nachnutzbarkeit zu ermöglichen und sich auf diese Weise stärker mit anderen Domänen außerhalb der Bibliothekswelt zu vernetzen. Es bestehen sowohl Linked-Data-Services einzelner Bibliotheken als auch der deutschen Bibliotheksverbünde. Trotz ihres gemeinsamen Ziels sprechen die bestehenden Services nicht die gleiche Sprache, da sie auf unterschiedlichen Modellierungen basieren. Um die Interoperabilität dieser Datenquellen zu gewährleisten, sollten die Dienste künftig einer einheitlichen Modellierung folgen. Vor diesem Hintergrund wurde im Januar 2012 eine Arbeitsgruppe gegründet, in der alle deutschen Bibliotheksverbünde, die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek sowie einige weitere interessierte und engagierte Kolleginnen und Kollegen mit entsprechender Expertise vertreten sind. Die Gruppe Titeldaten agiert seit April 2012 als Untergruppe des Kompetenzzentrums Interoperable Metadaten (DINI-AG KIM). Die Moderation und Koordination liegt bei der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. Im Dezember 2012 schloss sich auch der OBVSG der Arbeitsgruppe an. Die Schweizerische Nationalbibliothek folgte im Mai 2013. Vorliegende Empfehlungen sollen zu einer Harmonisierung der RDFRepräsentationen von Titeldaten im deutschsprachigen Raum beitragen und so möglichst einen Quasi-Standard etablieren. Auch international wird an der Herausforderung gearbeitet, die bestehenden bibliothekarischen Strukturen in die heute zur Verfügung stehenden Konzepte des Semantic Web zu überführen und ihren Mehrwert auszuschöpfen. Die neuesten internationalen Entwicklungen im Bereich der Bereitstellung bibliografischer Daten im Semantic Web wie die Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative der Library of Congress (BIBFRAME) haben ebenfalls das Ziel, ein Modell zur RDF-Repräsentation bibliothekarischer Daten bereitzustellen. Die Gruppe Titeldaten beobachtet diese Entwicklungen und beabsichtigt, die Erfahrungen und Anforderungen der deutschsprachigen Bibliothekswelt mit einzubringen. Dabei werden einerseits international erarbeitete Empfehlungen aufgegriffen und andererseits Impulse aus der nationalen Kooperation dort eingebracht. Die hier verwendeten Properties könnten z. B. als Grundlage für ein Mapping zu BIBFRAME dienen.

9.988644E-4 = product of:
  0.008989779 = sum of:
    0.008989779 = product of:
      0.017979559 = sum of:
        0.017979559 = weight(_text_:web in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017979559 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18735787 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 5654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=5654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This article provides information on World Wide Web resources that would help catalogers understand the implications of the documents Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), a report of the International Federation of Library Associations Study Group, completed in September 1997. The Online Computer Library Center Office of Research has carried out a number of experiments to assess methods for the WorldCat database. The reports help explain the implications of FRBR concepts for a database such as WorldCat or for one's library catalog. The Research Libraries Group (RLG) has also been experimenting with FRBR concepts as part of the RedLightGreen project. This document, Mining the Catalog, includes a section Delivering the Goods, which includes a description of the group's work with FRBR concepts in a test subset of the RLG Bibliographic Database. The FRBR Display Tool link leads to a download page for the tool. This tool transforms the bibliographic data found in machine-readable cataloguing record files into meaningful by grouping the bibliographic data into the Work, Expression and Manifestation FRBR concepts. By experimenting with the FRBR Display Tool, librarians can see actual displays of library catalog data arranged in the manner described in the publication Displays for Multiple Versions From MARC 21 and FRBR.

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 5862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=5862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5862)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Inhalt: Introduction by Patrick Le Boeuf; The Origins of the IFLA Study on Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records by Olivia M. A. Madison; Extending FRBR to Authorities by Glenn E. Patton; Modeling Subject Access Extending the FRBR and FRANAR Conceptual Models by Tom Delsey; Towards an implementation model for library catalogs using semantic web technology by Stefan Gradmann; Cataloguing of hand press materials and the concept of expression in FRBR by Gunilla Jonsson; The AustLit Gateway and Scholarly Bibliography: A Specialist Implementation of the FRBR by Kerry Kilner; Musical works in the FRBR model or "Quasi la stessa cosa": variations on a theme by Umberto Eco by Patrick Le Boeuf; PARADIGMA: FRBR and Digital Documents by Ketil Albertsen, Carol van Nuys; "Such stuff as dreams are made on": How does FRBR fit performing arts? by David Miller, Patrick Le Boeuf; Folklore Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Oral Traditions and FRBR by Yann Nicolas; FRBR and Cataloging for the Future by Barbara B. Tillett; Slovenian cataloguing practice and Functional requirements for bibliographic records: a comparative analysis Zlata Dimec, Maja Zumer, Gerhard J.A. Riesthuis; Implementation of FRBR: European research initiative by Maja Zumer; FRBRizing OCLC's WorldCat by Thomas B. Hickey, Edward T. O'Neill; Implementing the FRBR conceptual approach in the ISIS software environment: IFPA (ISIS FRBR Prototype Application) by Roberto Sturman; FRBR Display Tool by Jackie Radebaugh and Corey Keith; XOBIS: an Experimental Schema for Unifying Bibliographic and Authority Records by Dick R. Miller

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Purpose - This study attempts to compare the National Library of Malaysia (NLM)'s cataloguing in publication (CIP) records with their permanent records in the NLM's online public access catalogue (OPAC) database. Design/methodology/approach - The study compares the description of records in the NLM CIP versus NLM OPAC in terms of similarities and differences in the bibliographic elements for each record. The study selected the NLM's CIP records from January to April 2000, allowing more than 5 years for publishers to publish the registered CIP titles and also the NLM to make the records available in their OPAC database. Findings - The findings indicate that libraries that use NLM's CIP records in their copy cataloguing activity should not rely 100 per cent on the records. Verifications and modifications need to be carried out to ensure accuracy and quality of their catalogue records. Research limitations/implications - That Malaysian experience confirms research carried out previously elsewhere. Practical implications - The findings of the study are significant in terms of giving data about whether NLM's CIP records are trustworthy sources for the practical task of copy cataloguing or not. Originality/value - Although comparison studies of the accuracy and consistency of CIP records versus OPAC records are commonplace, having been conducted extensively since the 1980s in a variety of contexts, such a comparison study of CIP records versus OPAC records has never been conducted in Malaysia. With the increased usage of web-based OPACs as one source option for copy cataloguing, it is imperative to ensure the records copied are consistent and accurate to avoid post-alteration of the bibliographic description.

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In this article we present FLUX-CiM, a novel method for extracting components (e.g., author names, article titles, venues, page numbers) from bibliographic citations. Our method does not rely on patterns encoding specific delimiters used in a particular citation style. This feature yields a high degree of automation and flexibility, and allows FLUX-CiM to extract from citations in any given format. Differently from previous methods that are based on models learned from user-driven training, our method relies on a knowledge base automatically constructed from an existing set of sample metadata records from a given field (e.g., computer science, health sciences, social sciences, etc.). These records are usually available on the Web or other public data repositories. To demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of our proposed method, we present a series of experiments in which we apply it to extract bibliographic data from citations in articles of different fields. Results of these experiments exhibit precision and recall levels above 94% for all fields, and perfect extraction for the large majority of citations tested. In addition, in a comparison against a state-of-the-art information-extraction method, ours produced superior results without the training phase required by that method. Finally, we present a strategy for using bibliographic data resulting from the extraction process with FLUX-CiM to automatically update and expand the knowledge base of a given domain. We show that this strategy can be used to achieve good extraction results even if only a very small initial sample of bibliographic records is available for building the knowledge base.

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 3258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=3258,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3258, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This study examines the use of the Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) within three digital collections. It identifies the MODS metadata elements that evidence the most frequently occurring inconsistent and inaccurate application. For this, a total of sixty metadata records (twenty from each collection) were collected. The surveyed collections cover a wide range of material from digitized sound recordings and monographs, pre-1800 imprints to born-digital web resources. As a means of comparison in evaluating the quality of the metadata, local guidelines for the MODS metadata application are also consulted in order to determine the usage of MODS metadata elements in local collections against the guidelines. Analysis of the surveyed data drawn from the three collections shows that the five most frequently used elements (titleInfo, originInfo, recordInfo, physicalDescription and subject) appeared in 86 percent of the records. The total number of MODS elements represented in each collection ranged from twelve to fifteen (out of 20 MODS top-elements). Results of this study indicate that the MODS metadata scheme is suitable for describing a wide range of materials and resource types. The results also indicate that easily accessible local guidelines for metadata creation contribute significantly to the consistent and accurate application of the MODS metadata scheme.

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Theme

Semantic Web

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

9.611576E-4 = product of:
  0.008650418 = sum of:
    0.008650418 = product of:
      0.017300837 = sum of:
        0.017300837 = weight(_text_:web in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017300837 = score(doc=4140,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Among knowledge organizing institutions, libraries have a rich history of depicting persons as information. From personal authority records to descriptions of oral history interviews, libraries have amassed data on persons from a variety of perspectives. Within this set of traditions, however, subtle but significant shifts in practice and conception have occurred, particularly concerning how persons are interpreted and depicted and how such depictions are justified. To explore these issues, we looked to four specific library traditions: authority work, community information, oral history, and "human library" events. Within these traditions, we identified six standards guiding the representation of persons. We performed a content analysis of these standards, along with a semantic alignment and comparison of descriptive elements. From this analysis, we reconstructed an historical timeline and a set of narratives capturing changing definitions of people, a shifting focus from names to identities, and an increasing acceptance of varied sources of justification. Findings show not only a number of critical variations within library practices but also practical and ethical issues concerning the responsibility of libraries as well as the redistribution and reuse of library data on the web.

8.853288E-4 = product of:
  0.007967959 = sum of:
    0.007967959 = product of:
      0.015935918 = sum of:
        0.015935918 = weight(_text_:22 in 841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015935918 = score(doc=841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

"Die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgruppe Regionalbibliographie in der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Regionalbibliotheken (DBV Sektion 4) haben auf ihrer Jahrestagung am 22. und 23. April 2002 in Bautzen einen etwaigen Umstieg von RAK auf AACR2 beraten und sich einstimmig dagegen ausgesprochen. - Begründung - Der personelle, technische und finanzielle Aufwand für den Umstieg wäre für die Landes- und Regionalbibliographien gewaltig. Diejenigen Bibliographien, die ihre eigenen Datenbanken unterhalten, müssten diese sowohl vollständig EDV-technisch (z.B. hinsichtlich des Datenformats) anpassen als auch sämtliche Änderungen (z.B. bei Zeitschriftenaufnahmen, bei der Ansetzung von Körperschaften) nachführen. Dies ist umso schwerwiegender, als nicht alle Bibliographie- Datenbanken über entsprechende eigene Normdateien verfügen. Alle Landes- und Regionalbibliographien, also auch diejenigen, die in die Verbunddatenbanken integriert sind, wären überdies vom zusätzlichen Schulungsaufwand für das neue Regelwerk sowie von Revisionsarbeiten an den Normdateien betroffen. Weitere Nachteile wären Inkonsistenzen im Datenbestand bzw. Qualitätsverluste bei der Konvertierung der Altdaten. Diesen schwerwiegenden Nachteilen steht kein ersichtlicher Vorteil bei Erstellung oder Benutzung der Landes- und Regionalbibliographien gegenüber: Der Rationalisierungseffekt ist unbedeutend, da in Regionalbibliographien ganz überwiegend unselbstständige deutschsprachige Titel verzeichnet werden, für die keine Katalogisate aus AACR-Ländern genutzt werden können. Auch für die Benutzer der Datenbanken steht keine Verbesserung der Rechercheergebnisse zu erwarten. Die Landes- und Regionalbibliographien sehen sich derzeit einer Vielzahl von Aufgaben und neuen Herausforderungen gegenüber, die sie mit bestenfalls stagnierendem Personalstand zu erfüllen haben: Neben einer stetig wachsenden Titelzahl sind dies z.B. die neuen Publikationsformen im WWW, der Aufbau eines gemeinsamen Suchinstruments ("Virtuelle Deutsche Landesbibliographie° in KVK-Technik) und die Integration der noch konventionell vorliegenden älteren Bibliographienachweise in die Datenbanken. In dieser Situation wäre es kontraproduktiv, wenn enorme Ressourcen für einen Regelwerks- und Formatwechsel ohne praktischen Nutzen abgezogen würden. Die AG Regionalbibliographie lehnt daher einen Umstieg auf AACR2 ab. Sie empfiehlt stattdessen, das bestehende Regelwerk weiterzuentwickeln sowie alternative und zeitgemäße Methoden zu erarbeiten, um die internationale Zusammenarbeit zu verbessern (z.B. durch das Projekt "Virtuelle internationale Normdatei")."

8.5968553E-4 = product of:
  0.0077371695 = sum of:
    0.0077371695 = product of:
      0.015474339 = sum of:
        0.015474339 = weight(_text_:web in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015474339 = score(doc=175,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.16125198 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: Zumer, M.: Dedication [to Zlata Dimec]; P. Le Boeuf: FRBR: Hype or Cure-All? Introduction; O.M.A. Madison: The origins of the IFLA study an functional requirements for bibliographic records; G.E. Patton: Extending FRBR to authorities; T. Delsey: Modeling subject access: extending the FRBR and FRANAR conceptual models; S. Gradmann: rdfs:frbr - Towards an implementation model for library catalogs using semantic web technology; G. Johsson: Cataloguing of hand press materials and the concept of expression in FRBR; K. Kilner: The AustLit Gateway and scholarly bibliography: a specialist implementation of the FRBR; P. Le Boeuf: Musical works in the FRBR model or "Quasi la Stessa Cosa": variations an a theme by Umberto Eco; K. Albertsen, C. van Nuys: Paradigma: FRBR and digital documents; D. Miller, P Le Boeuf: "Such stuff as dreams are made on": How does FRBR fit performing arts?; Y. Nicolas: Folklore requirements for bibliographic records: oral traditions and FRBR; B.B. Tillett: FRBR and cataloging for the future; Z. Dimec, M. Zumer, G.J.A. Riesthuis: Slovenian cataloguing practice and Functional Requirements for Bibliography Records: a comparative analysis; M. Zumer: Implementation of FRBR: European research initiative; T.B. Hicley, E.T. O'Neill: FRBRizing OCLC's WorldCat; R. Sturman: Implementing the FRBR conceptual approach in the ISIS software environment: IFPA (ISIS FRBR prototype application); J. Radebaugh, C. Keith: FRBR display tool; D.R. Miller: XOBIS - an experimental schema for unifying bibliographic and authority records

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 33(2006) no.1, S.57-58 (V. Francu):"The work is a collection of major contributions of qualified professionals to the issues aroused by the most controversial alternative to organizing the bibliographic universe today: the conceptual model promoted by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) known by the name of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). The main goals of the work are to clarify the fundamental concepts and terminology that the model operates with, inform the audience about the applicability of the model to different kinds of library materials and bring closer to those interested the experiments undertaken and the implementation of the model in library systems worldwide. In the beginning, Patrick LeBoeuf, the chair of the IFLA FRBR Review Group, editor of the work and author of two of the articles included in the collection, puts together in a meaningful way articles about the origins and development of the FRBR model and how it will evolve, thus facilitating a gradual understanding of its structure and functionalities. He describes in the Introduction the FRBR entities as images of bibliographic realities insisting on the "expression debate". Further he concentrates on the ongoing or planned work still needed (p. 6) for the model to be fully accomplished and ultimately offer the desired bibliographic control over the actual computerized catalogues. The FRBR model associated but not reduced to the "FRBR tree" makes it possible to map the existing linear catalogues to an ontology, or semantic Web by providing a multitude of relationships among the bibliographic entities it comprises.
The FRBR entities as much as their attributes and relationships are highlighted and analyzed in the first section of the work by authors such as: Olivia Madison, chair of the FRBR Study Group, Glenn Patton, Tom Delsey and Stefan Gradmann. One of the general ideas of this first part is that there is still work to be done for the extension of the model to cover more aspects of subject access. Olivia Madison, with an insider's point of view, takes the reader on a historical approach to the IFLA Study on FRBR. The subject representation and authority issues are illustrated by Patton and Delsey in two articles in which the FRANAR (Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records) conceptual model is investigated. While speaking about the low visibility of library catalogues on the Web, Gradmann proposes as a solution the implementation of FRBR as RDF Schema and of RDF-based library catalogues using semantic Web technology. He explains how catalogues should go from the "librarian ivory tower" (p. 65) into the semantic Web and discusses the benefits of the proposed approach. The second section is dedicated to the applicability of the FRBR model to different types of library materials such as: hand press materials, in the article by Gunilla Jonsson, reiterating the expression problem; literary texts, in the view of the AustLit Gateway pointing out the use of enhanced manifestations by Kerry Kilner; musical aggregate works, seen as an experience of translation of the FRBR model by Patrick LeBoeuf; digital documents, in a description of the Norwegian Paradigma Project by Kertil Albertsen and Carol van Nuys; performing art productions, as creations difficult to be held in library collections by David Miller and Patrick LeBoeuf and oral tradition works as independent, collective but not impossible to grasp human creations by Yann Nicolas.

8.1556925E-4 = product of:
  0.007340123 = sum of:
    0.007340123 = product of:
      0.014680246 = sum of:
        0.014680246 = weight(_text_:web in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014680246 = score(doc=4530,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09596372 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.15297705 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Rez. in Mitt VÖB 64(2011) H.1, S.151-153 (S. Breitling): "Wie sieht die Rolle der Katalogisierung im 21. Jahrhundert aus? In diversen Blogs und Mailinglisten wird darüber seit geraumer Zeit diskutiert. Der Bereich Katalogisierung befindet sich in einer Phase tiefgreifenden Wandels, ausgelöst durch eine Vielzahl von Faktoren, von denen veränderte Nutzererwartungen bei der Recherche und die wachsende Menge an neuen zu katalogisierenden Materialien (e-Books, Web-Ressourcen etc.) und Formaten nur zwei Aspekte darstellen. Das technische Umfeld wird nicht zuletzt durch fortgeschrittene Möglichkeiten im Bereich Retrieval und Präsentation geprägt. Wie schafft man es, dass Katalogisierung als Teil des gesamten Bibliothekswesens relevant und zeitgemäß bleibt? Welche der in Jahrzehnten Katalogisierungspraxis erarbeiteten Standards sind erhaltenswert, und welche sind im Hinblick auf den Fortschritt der IT und ein mögliches Semantic Web vielleicht gar nicht mehr nötig oder müssen an die Gegebenheiten angepasst werden? Mit diesen und anderen Fragen beschäftigt sich die Aufsatzsammlung "Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century". In der Community bekannte Personen wie Martha Yee, Christine Schwartz oder James Weinheimer kommen zu Wort, aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum Bernhard Eversberg, Entwickler des Bibliothekssystems Allegro.

7.825275E-4 = product of:
  0.0070427475 = sum of:
    0.0070427475 = product of:
      0.014085495 = sum of:
        0.014085495 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014085495 = score(doc=632,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 632, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

MARC21 als Austauschformat Die Expertengruppe Datenformate hat in ihrer 5. Sitzung am 22. November 2005 die Frage der Hierarchienabbildung bei der Übernahme von MARC 21 weiter diskutiert und einer Lösung zugeführt. Für einen geringen Prozentsatz der Daten werden trotz Vorarbeiten der Expertengruppe Probleme bei der Überführung von MARC-21-Daten in MAB2-Strukturen gesehen. Es wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass es im Zusammenhang mit dem Umstieg auf MARC 21 ebenso wie bei der kooperativen Katalogisierung notwendig ist, gemeinsame Regeln festzulegen und Absprachen zwischen den Verbünden zu treffen. Eine unterschiedliche Handhabung des Formats sollte sich von vornherein verbieten. Projekt Kooperative Neukatalogisierung Die Projektgruppe hat zweimal getagt, zuletzt am 3. November 2005. Es liegen erste Ergebnisse vor, und spätestens Anfang Januar 2006 soll das Verfahren erprobt werden. Alle Verbünde signalisieren ihr Interesse an dem geplanten Verfahren, da die Eigenkatalogisierungsrate nach wie vor zu hoch ist. Für die Akzeptanz des Dienstes, der auch zum Synchronisieren der vorhandenen Aufnahmen und zum Austausch von Sacherschließungsdaten genutzt werden soll, ist die Aktualität des geplanten Neukatalogisierungspools essentiell. Ein weiteres Ziel ist auch die Optimierung der Arbeitsabläufe zwischen Verbundzentrale und Bibliotheken. Catalogue Enrichment Zur Anreicherung der Katalogdaten gibt es verschiedene Aktivitäten innerhalb der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme, die koordiniert werden müssen, damit eine Mehrfachdigitalisierung von Inhaltsverzeichnissen, Abstracts und anderen Objekten vermieden werden kann. Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme beschließt, eine kleine Arbeitsgruppe einzusetzen, die bis spätestens Anfang Februar 2006 einen Vorschlag mit unterschiedlichen Szenarien für unterschiedliche Umgebungen vorlegen soll. Aufgabe der AG Datenanreicherung ist die Konzeption eines schnellen Dienstes für die Digitalisierung von Abstracts und Inhaltsverzeichnissen sofern sie lizenzrechtlich frei verfügbar sind, die allen Verbünden zur Verfügung gestellt werden sollen. Dazu gehören eine Übersicht über die vorhandenen Daten und eine ausgearbeitete Verfahrensvorschrift für das künftige Vorgehen.
DDC/Melvil-Nutzungs- und Lizenzsituation Die Deutsche Bibliothek hat den Dienst Melvil vorgestellt, der auf der im Rahmen des Projektes DDC Deutsch erstellten deutschen Übersetzung der 22. Ausgabe der DDC basiert, und die Such- und Sprachgewohnheiten deutschsprachiger Benutzerinnen und Benutzer berücksichtigt. Mit Melvil wurde ein Online-Dienst entwickelt, der Bibliotheken und Informationseinrichtungen außer einem an WebDewey orientierten Klassifikationstool MelvilClass auch ein Retrievaltool MelvilSearch für die verbale Suche nach DDC-erschlossenen Dokumenten und das Browsing in der DDC-Hierarchie zur Verfügung stellt. Über die Schnittstelle MelvilSoap können Bibliotheken und Verbundzentralen, die den Dienst Melvil lizenziert haben, auch DDC-Daten zur weiteren Nutzung herunterladen. Gegenwärtig vergibt Die Deutsche Bibliothek Testlizenzen, ab 2006 kann der Dienst nach einem gestaffelten Modell kostenpflichtig genutzt werden Ergebnisse der Adhoc-Arbeitsgruppe ISBD(CR) Der Standardisierungsausschuss hatte in seiner 9. Sitzung am 15. Dezember 2004 die Anpassung der Splitregeln bei fortlaufenden Sammelwerken an die ISBD(CR) mit dem Ziel der Übernahme beschlossen. Im Januar 2005 richtete die Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung eine Ad-hoc-AG ISBD(CR) ein, in der Vertreter der ZDB, der Expertengruppe Formalerschließung und der AGDBT (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Datenbankteilnehmer der ZDB) unter der Federführung der Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung zusammenarbeiteten. Auftragsgemäß konnte dem Standardisierungsausschuss am 2. August 2005 ein entscheidungsreifer Entwurf zur Anwendung der ISBD(CR)-Splitregeln für fortlaufende Sammelwerke vorgelegt werden. Die Unterlage, die dem Standardisierungsausschuss zu seiner 11. Sitzung am 1. Dezember 2005 zugeleitet wurde, wurde den Mitgliedern der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme im Vorfeld der Sitzung zur Kenntnis gegeben. Die zeitnahe Anwendung der ISBD(CR)-Splitregeln würde nicht nur in einem kleinen abgeschlossenen Bereich eine Angleichung an internationale Gepflogenheiten bedeuten, sondern sie hätte auch einige positive Auswirkungen auf die von Zeitschriftentiteln abhängigen ergänzenden Dienstleistungen. So würde z.B. die Verlinkung mit SFX-Diensten erheblich erleichtert."

7.825275E-4 = product of:
  0.0070427475 = sum of:
    0.0070427475 = product of:
      0.014085495 = sum of:
        0.014085495 = weight(_text_:22 in 207) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014085495 = score(doc=207,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.13679022 = fieldWeight in 207, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=207)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Classification

025.3/071 22

DDC

025.3/071 22

7.746627E-4 = product of:
  0.006971964 = sum of:
    0.006971964 = product of:
      0.013943928 = sum of:
        0.013943928 = weight(_text_:22 in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013943928 = score(doc=2124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10297151 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02940506 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

5. 1.1997 9:39:22