Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.061677463 = product of:
  0.17269689 = sum of:
    0.056933407 = weight(_text_:subject in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056933407 = score(doc=2810,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=2810,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=2810,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=2810,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2810, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2810)
  0.35714287 = coord(5/14)

Abstract

A broad-based review of the subject and classification schemes used on British Library records began in late 2014. The review was undertaken in response to a number of drivers including: - An increasing demand on available resources due to the rapidly expanding digital publishing arena, and continuing steady state in print publication patterns - Increased demands on metadata to meet changing audience expectations.

Content

The Library is consulting with stakeholders concerning the potential impact of these proposals. No firm decisions have yet been taken regarding either of these standards. FAST 1. The British Library proposes to adopt FAST selectively to extend the scope of subject indexing of current and legacy content. 2. The British Library proposes to implement FAST as a replacement for LCSH in all current cataloguing, subject to mitigation of the risks identified above, in particular the question of sustainability. DDC 3. The British Library proposes to implement Abridged DDC selectively to extend the scope of subject indexing of current and legacy content.

Source

http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/pdfs/british-library-consultation-fast-abridged-dewey.pdf

0.0241358 = product of:
  0.112633735 = sum of:
    0.058800567 = weight(_text_:subject in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058800567 = score(doc=5016,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=5016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
    0.026916584 = weight(_text_:classification in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026916584 = score(doc=5016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The charge for the SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis states: Identify and study the major issues surrounding the use of metadata in the subject analysis and classification of digital resources. Provide discussion forums and programs relevant to these issues. Discussion forums should begin by Annual 1998. The continued need for the subcommittee should be reexamined by SAC no later than 2001.

0.024083693 = product of:
  0.11239056 = sum of:
    0.07201569 = weight(_text_:subject in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07201569 = score(doc=2433,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.67061174 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2433,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2433,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This report presents the results of desk-top based study of projects and initiatives in the area of linking and mapping subject tools. While its goal is to provide areas of further study for cross-language subject access in the European Library, and specifically the national libraries of the Ten New Member States, it is not restricted to cross-language mappings since some of the tools used to create links across thesauri or subject headings in the same language may also be appropriate for cross-language mapping. Tools reviewed have been selected to represent a variety of approaches (e.g. subject heading to subject heading, thesaurus to thesaurus, classification to subject heading) reflecting the variety of subject access tools in use in the European Library. The results show that there is no single solution that would be appropriate for all libraries but that parts of several initiatives may be applicable on a technical, organisational or content level.

0.017777555 = product of:
  0.082961924 = sum of:
    0.059409913 = weight(_text_:subject in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059409913 = score(doc=1800,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
    0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011776006 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
    0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 1800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011776006 = score(doc=1800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 1800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1800)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The SAC Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures was authorized at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting and appointed shortly before Annual Conference. Its creation was one result of a discussion of how (and why) to promote the display and use of broader-term subject heading references, and its charge reads as follows: To investigate: (1) the kinds of relationships that exist between subjects, the display of which are likely to be useful to catalog users; (2) how these relationships are or could be recorded in authorities and classification formats; (3) options for how these relationships should be presented to users of online and print catalogs, indexes, lists, etc. By the summer 1996 Annual Conference, make some recommendations to SAC about how to disseminate the information and/or implement changes. At that time assess the need for additional time to investigate these issues. The Subcommittee's work on each of the imperatives in the charge was summarized in a report issued at the 1996 Annual Conference (Appendix A). Highlights of this work included the development of a taxonomy of 165 subject relationships; a demonstration that, using existing MARC coding, catalog systems could be programmed to generate references they do not currently support; and an examination of reference displays in several CD-ROM database products. Since that time, work has continued on identifying term relationships and display options; on tracking research, discussion, and implementation of subject relationships in information systems; and on compiling a list of further research needs.

Content

Enthält: Appendix A: Subcommittee on Subject Relationships/Reference Structures - REPORT TO THE ALCTS/CCS SUBJECT ANALYSIS COMMITTEE - July 1996 Appendix B (part 1): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (alphabetical display) (Separat in: http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/msrscu2.pdf) Appendix B (part 2): Taxonomy of Subject Relationships. Compiled by Dee Michel with the assistance of Pat Kuhr - June 1996 draft (hierarchical display) Appendix C: Checklist of Candidate Subject Relationships for Information Retrieval. Compiled by Dee Michel, Pat Kuhr, and Jane Greenberg; edited by Greg Wool - June 1997 Appendix D: Review of Reference Displays in Selected CD-ROM Abstracts and Indexes by Harriette Hemmasi and Steven Riel Appendix E: Analysis of Relationships in Six LC Subject Authority Records by Harriette Hemmasi and Gary Strawn Appendix F: Report of a Preliminary Survey of Subject Referencing in OPACs by Gregory Wool Appendix G: LC Subject Referencing in OPACs--Why Bother? by Gregory Wool Appendix H: Research Needs on Subject Relationships and Reference Structures in Information Access compiled by Jane Greenberg and Steven Riel with contributions from Dee Michel and others edited by Gregory Wool Appendix I: Bibliography on Subject Relationships compiled mostly by Dee Michel with additional contributions from Jane Greenberg, Steven Riel, and Gregory Wool

0.00927127 = product of:
  0.064898886 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Definition of a conceptual reference model to provide a framework for the analysis of non-administrative metadata relating to library resources. The resulting model definition was approved by the FRBR Review Group (November 2016), and then made available to the Standing Committees of the Sections on Cataloguing and Subject Analysis & Access, as well as to the ISBD Review Group, for comment in December 2016. The final document was approved by the IFLACommittee on Standards (August 2017).

0.008997077 = product of:
  0.062979534 = sum of:
    0.028440988 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028440988 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24331525 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.034538545 = product of:
      0.06907709 = sum of:
        0.06907709 = weight(_text_:texts in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06907709 = score(doc=2429,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4196496 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.

0.0067291465 = product of:
  0.047104023 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 7858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=7858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 7858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7858)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 7858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=7858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 7858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7858)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The focus of this paper is an quality of ontologies as they relate to interoperating information systems. Quality is not a property of something but a judgment, so must be relative to some purpose, and generally involves recognition of design tradeoffs. Ontologies used for information systems interoperability have much in common with classification systems in information science, knowledge based systems, and programming languages, and inherit quality characteristics from each of these older areas. Factors peculiar to the new field lead to some additional characteristics relevant to quality, some of which are more profitably considered quality aspects not of the ontology as such, but of the environment through which the ontology is made available to its users. Suggestions are presented as to how to use these Factors in producing quality ontologies.

0.004806533 = product of:
  0.03364573 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2675, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2675)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2675, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2675)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Das VZG-Projekt Colibri/DDC beschäftigt sich seit 2003 mit automatischen Verfahren zur Dewey-Dezimalklassifikation (Dewey Decimal Classification, kurz DDC). Ziel des Projektes ist eine einheitliche DDC-Erschließung von bibliografischen Titeldatensätzen und eine Unterstützung der DDC-Expert(inn)en und DDC-Laien, z. B. bei der Analyse und Synthese von DDC-Notationen und deren Qualitätskontrolle und der DDC-basierten Suche. Der vorliegende Bericht konzentriert sich auf die erste größere automatische DDC-Klassifizierung und erste automatische und intellektuelle Bewertung mit der Klassifizierungskomponente vc_dcl1. Grundlage hierfür waren die von der Deutschen Nationabibliothek (DNB) im November 2007 zur Verfügung gestellten 25.653 Titeldatensätze (12 Wochen-/Monatslieferungen) der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie der Reihen A, B und H. Nach Erläuterung der automatischen DDC-Klassifizierung und automatischen Bewertung in Kapitel 2 wird in Kapitel 3 auf den DNB-Bericht "Colibri_Auswertung_DDC_Endbericht_Sommer_2008" eingegangen. Es werden Sachverhalte geklärt und Fragen gestellt, deren Antworten die Weichen für den Verlauf der weiteren Klassifizierungstests stellen werden. Über das Kapitel 3 hinaus führende weitergehende Betrachtungen und Gedanken zur Fortführung der automatischen DDC-Klassifizierung werden in Kapitel 4 angestellt. Der Bericht dient dem vertieften Verständnis für die automatischen Verfahren.

0.0042866482 = product of:
  0.060013074 = sum of:
    0.060013074 = weight(_text_:subject in 5346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060013074 = score(doc=5346,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.55884314 = fieldWeight in 5346, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5346)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Teil von: Final Report to the ALCTS/CCS Subject Analysis Committee. June 1997 (http://web2.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/CCS/committees/subjectanalysis/subjectrelations/finalreport.cfm).

0.0037321025 = product of:
  0.05224943 = sum of:
    0.05224943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05224943 = score(doc=1271,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

Editor

Library of Congress / Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

Source

http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-report-draft-11-30-07-final.pdf

0.0014528577 = product of:
  0.020340007 = sum of:
    0.020340007 = product of:
      0.040680014 = sum of:
        0.040680014 = weight(_text_:22 in 5576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040680014 = score(doc=5576,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5576, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5576)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

13.12.2017 14:17:22

7.264289E-4 = product of:
  0.010170003 = sum of:
    0.010170003 = product of:
      0.020340007 = sum of:
        0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4178) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020340007 = score(doc=4178,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4178, 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=4178)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

22. 3.2018 17:30:43