Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Zumer, M."
  1. Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2012) 0.02 
    0.0206917 = product of:
  0.0413834 = sum of:
    0.0413834 = sum of:
      0.0040478674 = weight(_text_:a in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040478674 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.037335534 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037335534 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = 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)
    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.
    Type
    a
  2. Golub, K.; Tudhope, D.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Terminology registries for knowledge organization systems : functionality, use, and attributes (2014) 0.02 
    0.01794665 = product of:
  0.0358933 = sum of:
    0.0358933 = sum of:
      0.009493091 = weight(_text_:a in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009493091 = score(doc=1347,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.25351265 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
      0.026400207 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026400207 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = 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)
    Abstract
    Terminology registries (TRs) are a crucial element of the infrastructure required for resource discovery services, digital libraries, Linked Data, and semantic interoperability generally. They can make the content of knowledge organization systems (KOS) available both for human and machine access. The paper describes the attributes and functionality for a TR, based on a review of published literature, existing TRs, and a survey of experts. A domain model based on user tasks is constructed and a set of core metadata elements for use in TRs is proposed. Ideally, the TR should allow searching as well as browsing for a KOS, matching a user's search while also providing information about existing terminology services, accessible to both humans and machines. The issues surrounding metadata for KOS are also discussed, together with the rationale for different aspects and the importance of a core set of KOS metadata for future machine-based access; a possible core set of metadata elements is proposed. This is dealt with in terms of practical experience and in relation to the Dublin Core Application Profile.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:54
    Type
    a
  3. Zumer, M.: Guidelines for (electronic) national bibliographies : work in progress (2005) 0.02 
    0.017761378 = product of:
  0.035522755 = sum of:
    0.035522755 = sum of:
      0.0047225123 = weight(_text_:a in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047225123 = score(doc=4346,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
      0.030800242 = weight(_text_:22 in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030800242 = score(doc=4346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1.11.2005 18:56:22
    Footnote
    Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.
    Type
    a
  4. Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2014) 0.02 
    0.01762214 = product of:
  0.03524428 = sum of:
    0.03524428 = sum of:
      0.0041313376 = weight(_text_:a in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0041313376 = score(doc=1962,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
      0.031112943 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031112943 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = 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)
    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.
    Footnote
    Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.
    Type
    a
  5. O'Neill, E.; Zumer, M.; Mixter, J.: FRBR aggregates : their types and frequency in library collections (2015) 0.02 
    0.016400224 = product of:
  0.032800447 = sum of:
    0.032800447 = sum of:
      0.006400241 = weight(_text_:a in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006400241 = score(doc=2610,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
      0.026400207 = weight(_text_:22 in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026400207 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = 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)
    Abstract
    Aggregates have been a frequent topic of discussion between library science researchers. This study seeks to better understand aggregates through the analysis of a sample of bibliographic records and review of the cataloging treatment of aggregates. The study focuses on determining how common aggregates are in library collections, what types of aggregates exist, how aggregates are described in bibliographic records, and the criteria for identifying aggregates from the information in bibliographic records. A sample of bibliographic records representing textual resources was taken from OCLC's WorldCat database. More than 20 percent of the sampled records represented aggregates and more works were embodied in aggregates than were embodied in single work manifestations. A variety of issues, including cataloging practices and the varying definitions of aggregates, made it difficult to accurately identify and quantify the presence of aggregates using only the information from bibliographic records.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  6. Zeng, M.L.; Gracy, K.F.; Zumer, M.: Using a semantic analysis tool to generate subject access points : a study using Panofsky's theory and two research samples (2014) 0.02 
    0.016062379 = product of:
  0.032124758 = sum of:
    0.032124758 = sum of:
      0.0057245493 = weight(_text_:a in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0057245493 = score(doc=1464,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1464, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1464)
      0.026400207 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026400207 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = 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)
    Abstract
    This paper attempts to explore an approach of using an automatic semantic analysis tool to enhance the "subject" access to materials that are not included in the usual library subject cataloging process. Using two research samples the authors analyzed the access points supplied by OpenCalais, a semantic analysis tool. As an aid in understanding how computerized subject analysis might be approached, this paper suggests using the three-layer framework that has been accepted and applied in image analysis, developed by Erwin Panofsky.
    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
    Type
    a
  7. Zumer, M.; Clavel, G.: EDLproject : one more step towards the European digtial library (2007) 0.01 
    0.013200103 = product of:
  0.026400207 = sum of:
    0.026400207 = product of:
      0.052800413 = sum of:
        0.052800413 = weight(_text_:22 in 3184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052800413 = score(doc=3184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11372503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03247589 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vortrag anläasslich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".
  8. Zumer, M.: Dedication [to Zlata Dimec] (2004) 0.01 
    0.009047085 = sum of:
  0.0061848112 = product of:
    0.0556633 = sum of:
      0.0556633 = weight(_text_:p in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0556633 = score(doc=4184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 4184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4184)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0028622746 = product of:
    0.0057245493 = sum of:
      0.0057245493 = weight(_text_:a in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0057245493 = score(doc=4184,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4184, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4184)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): hype or cure-all. Ed. by P. le Boeuf,
    Type
    a
  9. Riva, P.; Boeuf, P. le; Zumer, M.: IFLA Library Reference Model : a conceptual model for bibliographic information (2017) 0.01 
    0.007994145 = sum of:
  0.005102209 = product of:
    0.04591988 = sum of:
      0.04591988 = weight(_text_:p in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04591988 = score(doc=5179,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.3932592 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0028919363 = product of:
    0.0057838727 = sum of:
      0.0057838727 = weight(_text_:a in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0057838727 = score(doc=5179,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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).
  10. Le Boeuf, P.; Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: FRBR - Library Reference Model : draft for World-Wide Review (2016) 0.01 
    0.0075734425 = sum of:
  0.004373322 = product of:
    0.039359897 = sum of:
      0.039359897 = weight(_text_:p in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039359897 = score(doc=2881,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.33707932 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0032001205 = product of:
    0.006400241 = sum of:
      0.006400241 = weight(_text_:a in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006400241 = score(doc=2881,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The FRBR Review Group worked actively towards a consolidated model starting in 2010, in a series of working meetings held in conjunction with IFLA conferences and at an additional mid-year meeting in April 2012 during which the user task consolidation was first drafted. In 2013 in Singapore, the FRBR Review Group constituted a Consolidation Editorial Group (CEG) to focus on the detailed reassessment of attribute s and relationships, and the drafting of this model document. The CEG (at times with other FRBR Review Group members or invited experts) held five multi-day meetings, as well as discussing progress in detail with the FRBR Review Group as a whole during a working meeting in 2014 in Lyon and another in 2015 in Cape Town.
  11. Zumer, M.: Implementation of FRBR : European research initiative (2004) 0.01 
    0.0068217856 = sum of:
  0.004123207 = product of:
    0.037108865 = sum of:
      0.037108865 = weight(_text_:p in 5858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037108865 = score(doc=5858,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 5858, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5858)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0026985784 = product of:
    0.005397157 = sum of:
      0.005397157 = weight(_text_:a in 5858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005397157 = score(doc=5858,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5858, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5858)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The short history of European FRBR research is summarized. Immediately following the publication there was a lot of discussion, focusing mainly on the model itself and its appropriateness for description of library materials. Only later the focus has shifted towards implementation issues. Main topics are identified and two initiatives, originating from ELAG and IFLA, are described. An agenda of future research, which should result in FRBR implementation, is proposed.
    Source
    Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): hype or cure-all. Ed. by P. le Boeuf,
    Type
    a
  12. Pauman Budanovic, M.; Zumer, M.: Prototype cataloging interface based on the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM). Part 1 : conceptual design (2021) 0.01 
    0.0064997426 = sum of:
  0.0036078063 = product of:
    0.032470256 = sum of:
      0.032470256 = weight(_text_:p in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032470256 = score(doc=700,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0028919363 = product of:
    0.0057838727 = sum of:
      0.0057838727 = weight(_text_:a in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0057838727 = score(doc=700,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The aim of this paper is to present a prototype cataloging interface, which provides easier data entry, follows the cataloger's thought process and is based on the advantages of the IFLA LRM model. The paper summarizes all stages of the conceptual design and shows how the LRM was implemented. The main purpose of the cataloging interface design is to show how a LRM-based cataloging module might look like and how it could improve the existing cataloging process.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.7, p.619-643
    Type
    a
  13. Riva, P.; Doerr, M.; Zumer, M.: FRBRoo: enabling a common view of information from memory institutions (2008) 0.01 
    0.0063483827 = sum of:
  0.0025770047 = product of:
    0.023193043 = sum of:
      0.023193043 = weight(_text_:p in 3743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023193043 = score(doc=3743,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 3743, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3743)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0037713777 = product of:
    0.0075427555 = sum of:
      0.0075427555 = weight(_text_:a in 3743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0075427555 = score(doc=3743,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 3743, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3743)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In 2008 the FRBR/CRM Harmonisation Working Group has achieved a major milestone: a complete version of the object-oriented definition of FRBR (FRBRoo) was released for comment. After a brief overview of the history and context of the Working Group, this paper focuses on the primary contributions resulting from this work. - FRBRoo is a self-contained document which expresses the concepts of FRBR using the objectoriented methodology and framework of CIDOC CRM. It is an alternative view on library conceptualisation for a different purpose, not a replacement for FRBR. - This 'translation' process presented an opportunity to verify and confirm FRBR's internal consistency. - FRBRoo offers a common view of library and museum documentation as two kinds of information from memory institutions. Such a common view is necessary to provide interoperable information systems for all users interested in accessing common or related content. - The analysis provided an opportunity for mutual enrichment of FRBR and CIDOC CRM. Examples include: - - Addition of the modelling of time and events to FRBR, which can be seen in its application to the publishing process - - Clarification of the manifestation entity - - Explicit modelling of performances and recordings in FRBR - - Adding the work entity to CRM - - Adding the identifier assignment process to CRM. - Producing a formalisation which is more suited for implementation with object-oriented tools, and which facilitates the testing and adoption of FRBR concepts in implementations with different functional specifications and in different environments.
  14. Pauman Budanovic, M.; Zumer, M.: Prototype cataloging interface based on the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM). Part 2 : usability evaluation (2021) 0.01 
    0.0059690624 = sum of:
  0.0036078063 = product of:
    0.032470256 = sum of:
      0.032470256 = weight(_text_:p in 714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032470256 = score(doc=714,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.27807623 = fieldWeight in 714, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=714)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0023612562 = product of:
    0.0047225123 = sum of:
      0.0047225123 = weight(_text_:a in 714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047225123 = score(doc=714,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 714, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=714)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.7, p.644-668
    Type
    a
  15. Dimec, Z.; Zumer, M.; Riesthuis, G.J.A.: Slovenian cataloguing practice and Functional Requirements for Bibliography Records : a comparative analysis (2004) 0.01 
    0.0057101035 = sum of:
  0.003644435 = product of:
    0.032799914 = sum of:
      0.032799914 = weight(_text_:p in 5857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032799914 = score(doc=5857,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.28089944 = fieldWeight in 5857, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5857)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0020656688 = product of:
    0.0041313376 = sum of:
      0.0041313376 = weight(_text_:a in 5857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0041313376 = score(doc=5857,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5857, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5857)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The IFLA study Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) set a new frame for both cataloguing codes and subject analysis. The Paris Principles defined the functions of the catalogue followed by both cataloguing codes used in Slovenia: P. Kalan's Abecedni imenski katalog and E. Verona's Pravilnik i prirunik za izradbe abecednih kataloga. FRBR defines the functions for records themselves, irrespective of the type of the database consisting of these records. Compared to the requirements for the national bibliographic records as defined by FRBR, the records belonging to the Slovenian national bibliography show more descriptive elements and less notes on bibliographic history, which reflects in lack of uniform titles. As the uniform title itself enables the identification of related works and their expressions, this practice does not satisfy the FRBR requirements. Differences in the extent of records for different types of material derive from decentralised processing at the National and University Library. It is therefore necessary to establish uniform criteria for both the materials included into the Slovenian national bibliography, and the extent of data elements.
    Source
    Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): hype or cure-all. Ed. by P. le Boeuf,
    Type
    a
  16. Doerr, M.; Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: FRBR entities : identity and identification (2012) 0.01 
    0.00550163 = sum of:
  0.0020616036 = product of:
    0.018554432 = sum of:
      0.018554432 = weight(_text_:p in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018554432 = score(doc=1917,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.003440026 = product of:
    0.006880052 = sum of:
      0.006880052 = weight(_text_:a in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006880052 = score(doc=1917,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.18373153 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Content
    Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"
    Type
    a
  17. Landry, P.; Zumer, M.; Clavel-Merrin, G.: Report on cross-language subject access options (2006) 0.01 
    0.0051163393 = sum of:
  0.0030924056 = product of:
    0.02783165 = sum of:
      0.02783165 = weight(_text_:p in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02783165 = score(doc=2433,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0020239337 = product of:
    0.0040478674 = sum of:
      0.0040478674 = weight(_text_:a in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0040478674 = score(doc=2433,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  18. Vilar, P.; Zumer, M.: Comparison and evaluation of the user interfaces of e-journals (2005) 0.00 
    0.0049622334 = sum of:
  0.0025770047 = product of:
    0.023193043 = sum of:
      0.023193043 = weight(_text_:p in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023193043 = score(doc=4399,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0023852286 = product of:
    0.0047704573 = sum of:
      0.0047704573 = weight(_text_:a in 4399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047704573 = score(doc=4399,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4399, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4399)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Aims to present a comparison and evaluation of four user interfaces of web-based e-journals (Science Direct, ProQuest Direct, EBSCO Host and Emerald). Design/methodology/approach - The systems were assessed in an expert study according to accepted guidelines regarding user friendliness and functionality. User friendliness features studied were: language(s) and type(s) of interface; navigation options; personalization; and screen features. Functions inspected were: database selection; query formulation and reformulation; results manipulation; and help. Findings - Many similarities were found, but some differences among the systems were also discovered and analysed in detail. The greatest differences were found in the area of query formulation, and between the interface languages and types. Research limitations/implications - The user interfaces of four full-text IR systems offering e-journals which are accessible at the University of Ljubljana are surveyed. Practical implications - The interfaces are surveyed and assessed in order to discover their characteristics, advantages, and potential downsides and/or mistakes which may hinder use by an average user. Originality/value - The study serves as a basis for a subsequent user study of the information behaviour of the users of these systems.
    Type
    a
  19. Vilar, P.; Zumer, M.: Perceptions and importance of user friendliness of IR systems according to users' individual characteristics and academic discipline (2008) 0.00 
    0.004642674 = sum of:
  0.0025770047 = product of:
    0.023193043 = sum of:
      0.023193043 = weight(_text_:p in 2378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023193043 = score(doc=2378,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2378, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2378)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.0020656688 = product of:
    0.0041313376 = sum of:
      0.0041313376 = weight(_text_:a in 2378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0041313376 = score(doc=2378,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2378, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2378)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article presents one part of a wider study, performed at the Department of library and information science and book studies (LIS & BS) at the University of Ljubljana (UL). The study investigated the perceptions of user friendliness of information-retrieval systems (IRS) and the role of individual characteristics of users in these perceptions. Based on an expert study, a user study with 61 postgraduate students of the UL was performed. Three interfaces of e-journals were studied: Science Direct, Proquest Direct, and Ebsco Host. Questionnaires and observations were used for data collection. The users'perceptions of user friendliness and of importance of auxiliary functions were investigated. Also, the connections between these perceptions and the users'individual characteristics were identified. Three sets of individual characteristics were included: approaches to studying, thinking styles, and hemisphere leanings. In connection with the dimensions of individual characteristics, very different perceptions of user friendliness were expressed. Some dimensions of individual characteristics were also found to be connected to the users'academic areas. It is shown that participants from different academic areas have different requirements and perceptions of user friendliness. The results of the study are relevant for the design of the user interfaces of disciplinary IR systems. They also have implications for other areas, for example, user education and training.
    Type
    a
  20. Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: Introducing the FRBR library reference model (2015) 0.00 
    0.0037141386 = sum of:
  0.0020616036 = product of:
    0.018554432 = sum of:
      0.018554432 = weight(_text_:p in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018554432 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.116767466 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
  0.001652535 = product of:
    0.00330507 = sum of:
      0.00330507 = weight(_text_:a in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.00330507 = score(doc=2094,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.037446223 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03247589 = queryNorm
          0.088261776 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The FR family of conceptual models has grown to include three separate models prepared independently over many years by different working groups: FRBR for bibliographic data, FRAD for authority data, and FRSAD for subject authority data. Even as FRAD and FRSAD were being finalized in 2009-2010, it became clear that it would be necessary to combine or consolidate the FR family into a single coherent model to clarify the understanding of the overall model and remove barriers to its adoption. The FRBR Review Group has been working towards this since 2011, constituting a Consolidation Editorial Group in 2013. The consolidation task involves not only spelling out how the three existing models fit together, but requires taking a fresh look at the models to incorporate insights gained since their initial publications. This paper, based directly on the work of the Consolidation Editorial Group, provides the first public report of the consolidated model, tentatively referred to as the FRBR-Library Reference Model (FRBR-LRM), and the guiding principles that have been applied in its development.

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 46
  • el 11
  • r 2
  • m 1
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications