Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021425933 = product of:
  0.042851865 = sum of:
    0.042851865 = product of:
      0.08570373 = sum of:
        0.08570373 = weight(_text_:i in 5411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08570373 = score(doc=5411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.50006545 = fieldWeight in 5411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.014283955 = product of:
  0.02856791 = sum of:
    0.02856791 = product of:
      0.05713582 = sum of:
        0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 1775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05713582 = score(doc=1775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Jüngst bin ich gefragt worden, wer denn eigentlich der geistige Schöpfer eines Films sei - der Regisseur vielleicht? Oder der Drehbuchschreiber? Tatsächlich geht RDA nur in seltenen Fällen davon aus, dass man bei Filmen einen geistigen Schöpfer im normalen Sinn identifizieren kann. Das ist dann der Fall, wenn eine Person praktisch im Alleingang für den gesamten Film verantwortlich ist. Dann wird die Beziehungskennzeichnung "Filmemacher" aus Anhang I.2.1 vergeben. Bei normalen Bibliotheksmaterialien dürften derartige Produktionen nur höchst selten vorkommen, aber auf Youtube findet man sicher zahllose Beispiele dafür. ...

0.012625352 = product of:
  0.025250703 = sum of:
    0.025250703 = product of:
      0.050501406 = sum of:
        0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050501406 = score(doc=2958,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

Location

I

0.012625352 = product of:
  0.025250703 = sum of:
    0.025250703 = product of:
      0.050501406 = sum of:
        0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050501406 = score(doc=5718,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.

0.012498461 = product of:
  0.024996921 = sum of:
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049993843 = score(doc=2957,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2957, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2957)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 2950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=2950,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2950, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2950)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

0.010712966 = product of:
  0.021425933 = sum of:
    0.021425933 = product of:
      0.042851865 = sum of:
        0.042851865 = weight(_text_:i in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042851865 = score(doc=2959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

0.009234612 = product of:
  0.018469224 = sum of:
    0.018469224 = product of:
      0.036938448 = sum of:
        0.036938448 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036938448 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 5.2016 19:22:40

0.008927471 = product of:
  0.017854942 = sum of:
    0.017854942 = product of:
      0.035709884 = sum of:
        0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035709884 = score(doc=2952,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges confronting cataloguing as we have known it and to consider how these challenges might be confronted and whether they may be surmounted. The main focus of this paper is on cataloguing rather than the catalogue, although it is obviously difficult to separate one from the other. First of all, what does "cataloguing" mean? For the purposes of this paper I have adopted a broad definition incorporating the following activities: - description of the resource sufficient for purposes of identification and for differentiation from other similar resources - identification and control of access points - identification and control of relationships with other resources - subject analysis of the resource - assignment of subject indexing terms - assignment of classification numbers The challenges facing cataloguing are all too well known. In no particular order, the major challenges are: - Increasing inputs - New kinds of information resource - Competition from other mediation services. - Perception that cataloguing is high cost and offers poor value for money. - Fiscal constraints - Declining workforce This is a daunting list. We have a choice, we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, "Turn off our minds, relax and float down stream", until we retire, take voluntary redundancy, or retrain as marketing consultants; or, we can choose to confront these challenges and consider what they really mean for cataloguing.

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A brochure on RDA issued in 2010 includes the statements that "RDA goes beyond earlier cataloguing codes in that it provides guidelines on cataloguing digital resources and a stronger emphasis on helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want. RDA also supports clustering of bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators. This important new feature makes users more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats - an exciting development." Setting aside the fact that the author(s) of these statements and I differ on the definition of exciting, their claims are, at best, dubious. There is no evidence-empirical or anecdotal-that bibliographic records created using RDA are any better than records created using AACR2 (or AACR, for that matter) in "helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want." The claim is especially unfounded in the context of the current discovery ecosystem, in which users are perfectly capable of finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining information with absolutely no assistance from libraries or the bibliographic data libraries create.

0.0071419775 = product of:
  0.014283955 = sum of:
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = weight(_text_:i in 4283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02856791 = score(doc=4283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 4283, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Am 12. Dezember 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits erschienen. Dabei gab es, aufgrund des 3R-Projekts (RDA Toolkit Restruction and Redesign Project), keine inhaltlichen Änderungen am RDA-Text. Es wurden ausschließlich die Übersetzungen in finnischer und französischer Sprache, ebenso wie die dazugehörigen Policy statements, aktualisiert. Für den deutschsprachigen Raum wurden in der Übersetzung zwei Beziehungskennzeichnungen geändert: Im Anhang I.2.2 wurde die Änderung von "Sponsor" zu "Träger" wieder rückgängig gemacht. In Anhang K.2.3 wurde "Sponsor" zu "Person als Sponsor" geändert. Außerdem wurde die Übersetzung der Anwendungsrichtlinien (D-A-CH AWR) ins Französische aktualisiert. Dies ist das vorletzte Release vor dem Rollout des neuen Toolkits. Das letzte Release im Januar/Februar 2018 wird die norwegische Übersetzung enthalten. Im Juni 2018 wird das RDA Toolkit ein Relaunch erfahren und mit einer neuen Oberfläche erscheinen. Dieser beinhaltet ein Redesign der Toolkit-Oberfläche und die inhaltliche Anpassung des Standards RDA an das Library Reference Model (IFLA LRM) sowie die künftige stärkere Ausrichtung auf die aktuellen technischen Möglichkeiten. Zunächst wird im Juni 2018 die englische Originalausgabe der RDA in der neuen Form erscheinen. Alle Übersetzungen werden in einer Übergangszeit angepasst. Hierfür wird die alte Version des RDA Toolkit für ein weiteres Jahr zur Verfügung gestellt. Der Stand Dezember 2017 der deutschen Ausgabe und die D-A-CH-Anwendungsrichtlinien bleiben bis zur Anpassung eingefroren. Nähere Information zum Rollout finden Sie unter dem folgenden Link<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/3Rproject/SR3>. [Inetbib vom 13.12.2017]

0.0035709888 = product of:
  0.0071419775 = sum of:
    0.0071419775 = product of:
      0.014283955 = sum of:
        0.014283955 = weight(_text_:i in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014283955 = score(doc=3401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.083344236 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

What are these two Beowulf translations "expressions" of? I used the term work above, an even more abstract concept in the FRBR model. In this case, the "work" is Beowulf , that ancient intellectual creation or effort that over time has been expressed in multiple ways, each manifested in several different ways itself, with one or more items in each manifestation. This is a pretty gross oversimplification of FRBR, which also details other relationships: among these entities; between these entities and various persons (such as creators, publishers, and owners); and between these entities and their subjects. It also specifies characteristics, or "attributes," of the different types of entities (such as title, physical media, date, availability, and more.). But it should be enough to grasp the possibilities. Now apply it Imagine that you have a patron who needs a copy of Heaney's translation of Beowulf . She doesn't care who published it or when, only that it's Heaney's translation. What if you (or your patron) could place an interlibrary loan call on that expression, instead of looking through multiple bibliographic records (as of March, OCLC's WorldCat had nine regular print editions) for multiple manifestations and then judging which record is the best bet on which to place a request? Combine that with functionality that lets you specify "not Braille, not large print," and it could save you time. Now imagine a patron in want of a copy, any copy, in English, of Romeo and Juliet. Saving staff time means saving money. Whether or not this actually happens depends upon what the library community decides to do with FRBR. It is not a set of cataloging rules or a system design, but it can influence both. Several library system vendors are working with FRBR ideas; VTLS's current integrated library system product Virtua incorporates FRBR concepts in its design. More vendors may follow. How the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules develops the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) to incorporate FRBR will necessarily be a strong determinant of how records work in a "FRBR-ized" bibliographic database.