Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0519306 = product of:
  0.15579179 = sum of:
    0.15579179 = sum of:
      0.110905975 = weight(_text_:group in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.110905975 = score(doc=4346,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.5062657 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
      0.04488581 = weight(_text_:22 in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04488581 = score(doc=4346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Working group on Guidelines for (electronic) national bibliographies has started the work with an analysis of users and use of national bibliographies (NB). In addition to the well known importance of NB for libraries and librarians, other users and their requirements were identified. The results are presented and discussed; both existing and potential users and use were taken into account. The group will continue the work by specifying the functionality to support the various needs of different users.

Date

1.11.2005 18:56:22

0.02263859 = product of:
  0.06791577 = sum of:
    0.06791577 = product of:
      0.13583153 = sum of:
        0.13583153 = weight(_text_:group in 279) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13583153 = score(doc=279,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.6200464 = fieldWeight in 279, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=279)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Continuing the tradition set by the FRBR model, a new IFLA working group was formed to examine the functional requirements for subject authority records (FRSAR). The focus of the FRSAR Working Group is on the user tasks and functional requirements of authority records for the Group 3 entities as defined by FRBR. This paper presents the Working Group's terms of reference and reports on initial activities and subject authority issues discussed.

0.02263859 = product of:
  0.06791577 = sum of:
    0.06791577 = product of:
      0.13583153 = sum of:
        0.13583153 = weight(_text_:group in 4787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13583153 = score(doc=4787,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.6200464 = fieldWeight in 4787, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4787)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records Working Group (FRSAR WG) is the third IFLA Working Group of the FRBR family. It was formed in April 2005 and it was charged with the task of developing a conceptual model of FRBR Group 3 entities within the FRBR framework as they relate to the "aboutness" of works. This paper introduces the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), the model developed by the FRSAR WG, and discusses issues raised during the world-wide review.

0.019404506 = product of:
  0.058213517 = sum of:
    0.058213517 = product of:
      0.116427034 = sum of:
        0.116427034 = weight(_text_:group in 1913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.116427034 = score(doc=1913,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.53146833 = fieldWeight in 1913, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.013070395 = product of:
  0.039211184 = sum of:
    0.039211184 = product of:
      0.07842237 = sum of:
        0.07842237 = weight(_text_:group in 714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07842237 = score(doc=714,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.35798392 = fieldWeight in 714, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=714)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reports on usability evaluation that was carried out to evaluate the LRM-based prototype interface, presented in Part 1. A combination of focus group, Wizard of Oz method, and think-aloud protocol was used. The study was conducted in May 2019 with seven Slovenian catalogers from Maribor Public Library. Although participants had some difficulties understanding the LRM model, the user interface proved to be quite easy to use, quick to understand, and transparent. The functionality of the proposed prototype proved to be adequate, since the catalogers successfully and independently completed all the tasks without major problems and errors.

0.012936337 = product of:
  0.03880901 = sum of:
    0.03880901 = product of:
      0.07761802 = sum of:
        0.07761802 = weight(_text_:group in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07761802 = score(doc=1917,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.3543122 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The models in the FRBR family include ways to document names or terms for all entities defined in the models, with identification as the ultimate aim, i.e., to distinguish entities by unique appellations and to use the most reliable appellations for entities in a given context. The intention in this paper is to explore the interrelationships between these different models with regards to their treatment of names, identifiers and other appellation entities. The specialisation/generalisation structure of the appellation-related entities and the relationships and properties of these entities will be discussed. The paper also tries to clarify the potential confusion of identity itself in this context - when are we talking about an entity via its name, about the name itself, about the name citation in a document and when about a name of name? In FRBR(er), titles for group 1, names for group 2 and terms for group 3 entities are merely defined as attributes of these entities. This serves the basic requirement of associating the appellation (label) with the entity, but does not allow introducing attributes of these appellations or relationships between and among them. FRAD, completed a decade later, defined as entities name, identifier, and controlled access point. Clearly making the distinction between a bibliographic entity and its name is a significant step taken in FRAD. This permits the separate treatment of relationships between the persons, families, and corporate bodies themselves and those relationships which instead operate between their names or between the controlled access points based on those names. In FRSAD, the most recent model, two entities are defined, Thema and Nomen. Again, the bibliographic entity is distinguished from the full range of its appellations. The FRBRoo model expanded on the treatment of appellations and identifiers in CRM by modeling the identifier assignment process. In FRBRoo, F12 Name was defined but identified with the existing CRM entity E41 Appellation. Current development is concentrating on integrating FRAD and FRSAD concepts into FRBRoo, and this is putting a focus on naming and appellations, causing new classes and properties to be defined, and requiring a re-evaluation of some of the decisions previously made in FRBRoo. As naming and appellations are such a significant feature of the FRBR family of conceptual models, this work is an important step in towards the consolidation of the models into a single coherent statement of the bibliographic universe.

0.009068305 = product of:
  0.027204912 = sum of:
    0.027204912 = product of:
      0.054409824 = sum of:
        0.054409824 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054409824 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.00755692 = product of:
  0.022670759 = sum of:
    0.022670759 = product of:
      0.045341518 = sum of:
        0.045341518 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045341518 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The article discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and/or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the Dewey Decimal Classification [DDC] (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.0064122584 = product of:
  0.019236775 = sum of:
    0.019236775 = product of:
      0.03847355 = sum of:
        0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03847355 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:54

0.0064122584 = product of:
  0.019236775 = sum of:
    0.019236775 = product of:
      0.03847355 = sum of:
        0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03847355 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0064122584 = product of:
  0.019236775 = sum of:
    0.019236775 = product of:
      0.03847355 = sum of:
        0.03847355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03847355 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22