Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.033301298 = product of:
  0.066602595 = sum of:
    0.024084795 = weight(_text_:wide in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024084795 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19679762 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=1166,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.016384944 = weight(_text_:computer in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016384944 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.100942515 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.009619858 = product of:
  0.057719145 = sum of:
    0.057719145 = product of:
      0.11543829 = sum of:
        0.11543829 = weight(_text_:programs in 5680) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11543829 = score(doc=5680,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25748047 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.44833803 = fieldWeight in 5680, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.79699 = idf(docFreq=364, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5680)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Authority control is an important part of cataloging since it helps provide consistent access to names, titles, subjects, and genre/forms. There are a variety of methods for providing authority control, ranging from manual, time-consuming processes to automated processes. However, the automated processes often seem out of reach for small libraries when it comes to using a pricey vendor or expert cataloger. This paper introduces ideas on how to handle authority control using a variety of tools, both paid and free. The author describes how their library handles authority control; compares vendors and programs that can be used to provide varying levels of authority control; and demonstrates authority control using MarcEdit.

0.006159573 = product of:
  0.036957435 = sum of:
    0.036957435 = weight(_text_:web in 4599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036957435 = score(doc=4599,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4599, 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=4599)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Aufgrund der fortgesetzten Publikationsflut stellt sich immer dringender die Frage, wie die Schwellen für die Titel- und Normdatenpflege gesenkt werden können - sowohl für die intellektuelle als auch die automatisierte Sacherschließung. Zu einer Verbesserung der Daten- und Arbeitsqualität in der Sacherschließung kann beigetragen werden a) durch eine flexible Visualisierung der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) und anderer Wissensorganisationssysteme, so dass deren Graphstruktur intuitiv erfassbar wird, und b) durch eine investigative Analyse ihrer aktuellen Struktur und die Entwicklung angepasster automatisierter Methoden zur Ermittlung und Korrektur fehlerhafter Muster. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) prüft im Rahmen des GND-Entwicklungsprogramms 2017-2021, welche Bedingungen für eine fruchtbare community-getriebene Open-Source-Entwicklung entsprechender Werkzeuge gegeben sein müssen. Weiteres Potential steckt in einem langfristigen Übergang zu einer Darstellung von Titel- und Normdaten in Beschreibungssprachen im Sinne des Semantic Web (RDF; OWL, SKOS). So profitiert die GND von der Interoperabilität mit anderen kontrollierten Vokabularen und von einer erleichterten Interaktion mit anderen Fach-Communities und kann umgekehrt auch außerhalb des Bibliothekswesens zu einem noch attraktiveren Wissensorganisationssystem werden. Darüber hinaus bieten die Ansätze aus dem Semantic Web die Möglichkeit, stärker formalisierte, strukturierende Satellitenvokabulare rund um die GND zu entwickeln. Daraus ergeben sich nicht zuletzt auch neue Perspektiven für die automatisierte Sacherschließung. Es wäre lohnend, näher auszuloten, wie und inwieweit semantisch-logische Verfahren den bestehenden Methodenmix bereichern können.

0.0052265706 = product of:
  0.031359423 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 310, 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=310)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

0.0025074114 = product of:
  0.0150444675 = sum of:
    0.0150444675 = product of:
      0.030088935 = sum of:
        0.030088935 = weight(_text_:22 in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030088935 = score(doc=3780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3780, 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=3780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

19. 8.2017 9:24:22