Search (50 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Zumer, M."
  1. Zumer, M.; Clavel, G.: EDLproject : one more step towards the European digtial library (2007) 0.02
    0.0153987575 = product of:
      0.04619627 = sum of:
        0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 3184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010709076 = score(doc=3184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3184)
        0.035487194 = product of:
          0.07097439 = sum of:
            0.07097439 = weight(_text_:22 in 3184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07097439 = score(doc=3184,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    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".
  2. Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2012) 0.01
    0.0134127205 = product of:
      0.04023816 = sum of:
        0.015144923 = weight(_text_:in in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015144923 = score(doc=1967,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
        0.025093239 = product of:
          0.050186478 = sum of:
            0.050186478 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050186478 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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(2/6)
    
    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.
    Source
    Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn
  3. Mitchell, J.S.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Modeling classification systems in multicultural and multilingual contexts (2014) 0.01
    0.01143246 = product of:
      0.034297377 = sum of:
        0.0133863455 = weight(_text_:in in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133863455 = score(doc=1962,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
        0.02091103 = product of:
          0.04182206 = sum of:
            0.04182206 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04182206 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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(2/6)
    
    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.
  4. Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: Introducing the FRBR library reference model (2015) 0.01
    0.010633479 = product of:
      0.031900436 = sum of:
        0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010709076 = score(doc=2094,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
        0.021191359 = weight(_text_:und in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021191359 = score(doc=2094,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.219024 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    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.
    Content
    Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC 2015 - Cape Town, South Africa in Session 207 - Cataloguing. Vgl. den Kommentar von H. Wiesenmüller [Mail vom 25.06.2015]: "hier etwas höchst Spannendes - eine knappe Darstellung des konsolidierten FR-Modells, auf das wir schon so lange warten, und das im kommenden Jahr in das weltweite Begutachtungsverfahren gehen soll: http://library.ifla.org/1084/. Ich muss das Paper selbst auch erst in Ruhe lesen, sehe aber beim schnellen Durchblättern mit Freude bestätigt, dass die Gruppe-3-Entitäten aus FRBR tatsächlich abgeschafft werden. Die FRSAD-Entität "Thema" (die für alles stehen kann, was Thema eins Werks ist) wird umgetauft in "Res" (von lateinisch "res", Sache) und steht für "any entity in the universe of discourse". Die Entitäten der Gruppe 2 heißen jetzt zusammenfassend "Agent" und teilen sich auf in "Person" und "Group", wobei letzteres Körperschaften und Familien umfasst. Neu eingeführt wird "Time-span". Auf den ersten Blick scheint das jedenfalls alles ganz gut durchdacht zu sein."
  5. 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) 0.01
    0.010286495 = product of:
      0.030859483 = sum of:
        0.013115887 = weight(_text_:in in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013115887 = score(doc=1464,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 1464, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1464)
        0.017743597 = product of:
          0.035487194 = sum of:
            0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035487194 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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(2/6)
    
    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.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    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
    Theme
    Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval
  6. O'Neill, E.; Zumer, M.; Mixter, J.: FRBR aggregates : their types and frequency in library collections (2015) 0.01
    0.010286495 = product of:
      0.030859483 = sum of:
        0.013115887 = weight(_text_:in in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013115887 = score(doc=2610,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.22087781 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
        0.017743597 = product of:
          0.035487194 = sum of:
            0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035487194 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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(2/6)
    
    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
  7. Zumer, M.: Guidelines for (electronic) national bibliographies : work in progress (2005) 0.01
    0.009845134 = product of:
      0.029535402 = sum of:
        0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008834538 = score(doc=4346,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 4346, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4346)
        0.020700864 = product of:
          0.04140173 = sum of:
            0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04140173 = score(doc=4346,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    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
  8. Zumer, M.; Clavel-Merrin, G.: TEL-ME-MOR : investigating subject access tools and practices of European national libraries (2008) 0.01
    0.009460791 = product of:
      0.028382372 = sum of:
        0.014166778 = weight(_text_:in in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014166778 = score(doc=1682,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
        0.014215595 = weight(_text_:und in 1682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014215595 = score(doc=1682,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 1682, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1682)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    Abstract
    TEL-ME-MOR is funded by European Commission, Directorate E - Content, as a result of the third call for proposals published in 2004, under the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). As part of Workpackage 3 the national libraries of the 10 New Member States responded to a questionnaire to enable the TEL-ME-MOR project to establish an overview of subject access tools and practice in their institutions. Results are analysed and areas for further study are identified, in particular in the field of cross language access.
    Series
    Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.10
    Source
    Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch
  9. Zumer, M.: FRSAD: challenges of modeling the aboutness (2011) 0.01
    0.0091349725 = product of:
      0.027404916 = sum of:
        0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 4787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010820055 = score(doc=4787,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 4787, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4787)
        0.01658486 = weight(_text_:und in 4787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01658486 = score(doc=4787,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4787, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4787)
      0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    
    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.
    Series
    Bibliotheca Academica - Reihe Informations- und Bibliothekswissenschaften; Bd. 1
    Source
    Concepts in context: Proceedings of the Cologne Conference on Interoperability and Semantics in Knowledge Organization July 19th - 20th, 2010. Eds.: F. Boteram, W. Gödert u. J. Hubrich
  10. Golub, K.; Tudhope, D.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Terminology registries for knowledge organization systems : functionality, use, and attributes (2014) 0.01
    0.009005977 = product of:
      0.027017929 = sum of:
        0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009274333 = score(doc=1347,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
        0.017743597 = product of:
          0.035487194 = sum of:
            0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035487194 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043654136 = 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(2/6)
    
    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
  11. Le Boeuf, P.; Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: FRBR - Library Reference Model : draft for World-Wide Review (2016) 0.00
    0.0029598325 = product of:
      0.017758995 = sum of:
        0.017758995 = weight(_text_:in in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017758995 = score(doc=2881,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.29906997 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    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.
  12. Budanovic, M.P.; Zumer, M.: ¬The catalogers' thought process : a comparison of formal and informal context (2018) 0.00
    0.0023281053 = product of:
      0.013968632 = sum of:
        0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 5180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013968632 = score(doc=5180,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 5180, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5180)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    The aim of this article is to analyze how catalogers describe publications without cataloging tools in comparison with the current cataloging process. A total of 46 catalogers took part in the first study, a free description of monographic publications, while 30 catalogers performed original cataloging in their actual environment. A combination of observations and think-aloud protocols was used for data gathering in both studies. The focus was on Slovenian catalogers from different types and sizes of libraries. Results revealed both differences and similarities between catalogers' mental models in the respective studies.
  13. Aalberg, T.; Zumer, M.: ¬The value of MARC data, or, challenges of frbrisation (2013) 0.00
    0.0022310577 = product of:
      0.0133863455 = sum of:
        0.0133863455 = weight(_text_:in in 1769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0133863455 = score(doc=1769,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 1769, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1769)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Bibliographic records should now be used in innovative end-user applications that enable users to learn about, discover and exploit available content, and this information should be interpreted and reused also beyond the library domain. New conceptual models such as FRBR offer the foundation for such developments. The main motivation for this research is to contribute to the adoption of the FRBR model in future bibliographic standards and systems, by analysing limitations in existing bibliographic information and looking for short- and long-term solutions that can improve the data quality in terms of expressing the FRBR model. Design/methodology/approach - MARC records in three collections (BIBSYS catalogue, Slovenian National Bibliography and BTJ catalogue) were first analysed by looking at statistics of field and subfield usage to determine common patterns that express FRBR. Based on this, different rules for interpreting the information were developed. Finally typical problems/errors found in MARC records were analysed. Findings - Different types of FRBR entity-relationship structures that typically can be found in bibliographic records are identified. Problems related to interpreting these from bibliographic records are analyzed. Frbrisation of consistent and complete MARC records is relatively successful, particularly if all entities are systematically described and relationships among them are clearly indicated. Research limitations/implications - Advanced matching was not used for clustering of identical entities. Practical implications - Cataloguing guidelines are proposed to enable better frbrisation of MARC records in the interim period, before new formats are developed and implemented. Originality/value - This is the first in depth analysis of manifestations embodying several expressions and of works and agents as subjects.
  14. Riesthuis, G.J.A.; Zumer, M.: FRBR and FRANAR : subject access (2004) 0.00
    0.0022260942 = product of:
      0.013356565 = sum of:
        0.013356565 = weight(_text_:in in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013356565 = score(doc=2646,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.22493094 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    In the last decade a discussion has been going an in the Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) about the principles of cataloguing. This discussion was initiated by the widespread replacement of the card and list catalogues by Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) since 1980. In this paper we discuss the role of subject cataloguing in three important documents that are the results of this discussion. Our conclusion is that the interest in subject cataloguing has grown remarkably, but is still not an the level it deserves given the fact that a great part of all searches in OPACs are subject oriented.
    Content
    1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9
  15. Doerr, M.; Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: FRBR entities : identity and identification (2012) 0.00
    0.002145118 = product of:
      0.0128707085 = sum of:
        0.0128707085 = weight(_text_:in in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0128707085 = score(doc=1917,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2167489 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    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.
  16. Brito, M(arcilio), de; Mustafa El Hadi, W.; Zumer, M.; Bastos Vieira, S.; Brito, M(arcos), de: Document representation with images : an experimental milestone (2018) 0.00
    0.0020609628 = product of:
      0.012365777 = sum of:
        0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 4694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012365777 = score(doc=4694,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 4694, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4694)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  17. Zumer, M.; Riesthuis, G.J.A.: Consequences of implementing FRBR : are we ready to open pandora's box? (2002) 0.00
    0.0019955188 = product of:
      0.011973113 = sum of:
        0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011973113 = score(doc=637,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    The study Functional Requirements for Bibliograpbic Records (FRBR) was commissioned by IFLA and published in 1998. It defines the core functions of a catalogue (and bibliographic records) as a gateway to information. For that purpose an abstract entity-relationship model of a catalogue is proposed. The FRBR model is revolutionary. The (computer) catalogue is not seen as a sequence of bibliographic records and a replica of the traditional card catalogue, but rather as a network of connected entities, enabling the user to perform seamlessly all the necessary functions. So far there has been some theoretical discussion of the model and some limited experiments, but there is a lack of research in how to implement this theoretical model in practice, in new-generation catalogues. In this paper some reactions to the model are analysed. The main focus is an consequences of the model for the OPAC interface design, particularly the searching functionality and display of results.
  18. Landry, P.; Zumer, M.; Clavel-Merrin, G.: Report on cross-language subject access options (2006) 0.00
    0.0019955188 = product of:
      0.011973113 = sum of:
        0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011973113 = score(doc=2433,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    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.
  19. Zumer, M.; O'Neill, E.T.: Modeling aggregates in FRBR (2012) 0.00
    0.0019955188 = product of:
      0.011973113 = sum of:
        0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 1913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011973113 = score(doc=1913,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 1913, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1913)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    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.
  20. Bartolo, L.M.; Zumer, M.; Casson, R.; Holmberg, L.: ¬The ALCOM/NIST heterogeneous structures database : knowledge structure for basic and applied research in an interdisciplinary scientific collaboration (1998) 0.00
    0.0019676082 = product of:
      0.011805649 = sum of:
        0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 41) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011805649 = score(doc=41,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 41, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=41)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Scientific enterprise represents a pivotal area in knowledge organization because of its prolific use of emerging information technology and its close network of researchers in government, industry, and universities as producers and consumers of knowledge. The ALCOM/NIST Heterogeneous Structures Database (http://cpip.kent.edu/PSP) is an online information system involving university research scientists, government agencies, and industrial partners in the ALCOM/NIST Heterogeneous Structures Project. The Database is the first stage of a multiphase knowledge base of liquid crystal science, the Basic and Applied Liquid Crystal Research Database. This paper will describe the system functionality of the Heterogeneous Structures Database and the expansion of a previously existing tool, the Thesaurus for Liquid Crystal Research and Applications (http://www.personal.kent.edu/~slis/zeng/maja2.html), into the Database. The first part of the paper will discuss how the design of the Database addresses the following user characteristics from multidisciplines involved in the project: interdisciplinarity, basic and applied research, experts and novices users, and user population groups (academia, government, and industry). The second part of the paper will report on how the authors are developing a frame of knowledge structure to meet these characteristics
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.6
    Source
    Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al