Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 2950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=2950,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2950, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

RDA appears to be an hybrid standard: a list containing a high number of bibliographic elements and a rewrite - more formal than substantial - of cataloguing practices established with AACR2. In this document, RDA guidelines are analysed trying to compare them to the requirements of good cataloguing rules. Cataloguing rules in general shold not be an abstract and self-referential model but an effective tool to analyse and represent cultural phenomena, useful to qualified staff and helpful in learning about users need. From this point of view, RDA is quite disappointing: many relevant and frequent cataloguing issues are not mentioned at all, and cataloguing itself is left without real guidelines. A certain number of omissions, mistakes and individual flawness in the text should be modified by RDA board with a deep analysis of real cataloguing activities.

Type

a

0.0026473717 = product of:
  0.0052947435 = sum of:
    0.0052947435 = product of:
      0.010589487 = sum of:
        0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 1920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010589487 = score(doc=1920,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1920, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model has been the main framework of reference for the new Italian cataloging rules. The code puts the work at the center of the catalog and of the rules because users are mostly interested in works and the most wanted works are increasingly available in multiple manifestations. Every work should be identified in the catalog and responsibility relations should be recorded at the proper level. The code is tailored to the specific needs of library cataloging and based on a new thorough analysis of the phenomena to be reflected, organized, and made accessible via the catalog.

Content

Contribution to a special issue "The FRBR family of conceptual models: toward a linked future"

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=1878,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1878, 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=1878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=5669,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today's electronic catalogue makes retrieval of specific records very simple and quick in most (not all) cases, but searches aimed at the reliable retrieval of all material answering a well-defined need (author, work, theme, form, etc.) are still long and tiring, and sometimes impossible, in crowded bibliographic databases. In spite of its great relevance, authority control has been and still is the "poor relative" of cataloguing, the often neglected or overlooked "other half" if we compare it to the creation of bibliographic records. The FRBR study and the new authority control standards (GARR and UNIMARC Authorities) are important steps towards future perspectives. Even today, cataloguing codes do not make clear the difference between the access points for bibliographic records and the relationships (work-to-work, author-to-work, etc.) that are independent from spoecific publications. With the development of richer authority records and relationships, the bibliographic record might be relieved of information related to entities different from publications and of all the functions more suitably worked out upstream or downstream in access systems or by links to the images and/or the texts of the publications themselves. A "light" bibliographic record would no longer be the paramount component of library information systems; it would keep its central role rather as nimble, swift turntable between access and content organization systems and systems for management and display of digital resources themselves.

Type

a