Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010274886 = product of:
  0.041099545 = sum of:
    0.041099545 = weight(_text_:digitale in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041099545 = score(doc=2839,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18027179 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.22798656 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.158747 = idf(docFreq=690, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Das internationale ORCID-Konsortium vernetzt Publizierende mit ihren Aufsätzen und Forschungsdaten über eine eindeutige ID. Weltweit besitzen bereits über 2 Millionen Forschende eine solche Kennung. Um ORCID in Deutschland zu fördern, wurde das Projektvorhaben "ORCID DE - Förderung der Open Researcher and Contributor ID in Deutschland" gebildet. Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) hat die Förderung des auf drei Jahre angelegten Projekts im Februar 2016 bewilligt. Durch die Integration in über 230 digitale Informationsinfrastrukturen erleichtert die Open Researcher and Contributor ID, kurz ORCID, die Pflege der Publikationsliste für Forscherinnen und Forscher. Die Idee dahinter ist folgende: Jede Person, die im wissenschaftlichen Arbeitsprozess einen Beitrag leistet, kann sich über die eindeutige ORCID-Kennung mit ihren Publikationen, Forschungsdaten und anderen Produkten des Forschungsprozesses (zum Beispiel Software) eindeutig vernetzen. Damit werden diese Objekte sichtbar und technisch verlässlich mit ihren Erschafferinnen und Erschaffern verbunden. ORCID bietet das Potenzial, bisher verteilte Informationen standardisiert zusammenzuführen und damit einen Überblick auf die Forschungsleistung von Forschenden zu ermöglichen. Durch die Offenheit des Systems und des großen internationalen Konsortiums ist ORCID auf dem Weg, ein langfristig gültiger Identifikator im wissenschaftlichen Alltag zu werden.

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=5669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0021033147 = product of:
  0.008413259 = sum of:
    0.008413259 = weight(_text_:information in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008413259 = score(doc=1760,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR)-based model and functional requirements for authority data (FRAD)-based model; both of which incorporate an event concept that transforms FRBR and FRAD with minimal modification. Design/methodology/approach - Relationships between the entities defined in FRBR/FRAD are transformed into event entities and relationships with other kinds of entities. The cardinality of those relationships is also examined. In addition, a comparison of the proposed FRBR-based model with the object-oriented FRBR (FRBROO) is conducted. Findings - In the proposed event-aware FRBR model, an event and its output resource are dependent on each other and necessary information about an event can be expressed with information about its output resource, and vice versa. Therefore, the usefulness and expressiveness of the proposed model is limited. In the FRBROO model, dependency between an event and its output resource is not observed, except in a few cases, since a different resource and event modeling was adopted there. The event-aware FRAD model proposed is useful - but also the scope of its usefulness limited since dependency between an event and its input/output resource is not observed on some event entities. Originality/value - The proposed models are meaningful in terms of understanding the basic structure and features of a model that incorporates an event concept. The usefulness and limitation of event modeling have been clarified through such model building. The proposed models provide a stable basis for examining FRBR/FRAD further.

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=5655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority control is necessary for meeting the catalog's objectives of enabling users to find the works of an author and to collocate all works of a person or corporate body. This article looks at the current state of authority control as compared to the visions of the 1979 LITA (Library Information and Technology Association) Institutes and the 1984 Authority Control Interest Group. It explores a new view of IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) and a future vision of a virtual international authority file as a building block for the Semantic Web and reinforces the importance of authority control to improve the precision of searches of large databases or the Internet.

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 5661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=5661,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5661, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5661)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the work of the IFLA Working Group of Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records. Describes the activities of the group to build liaison relationships with other sectors of the information community that create and maintain data which is similar to library authority files. Provides a description of the entity-relationship model being developed by the Working Group to extend the FRBR model to cover authority data. (Note: Readers should be aware that the Working Group's entity-relationship model has changed considerably since this paper was written in December 2002.)

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 5663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=5663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5663)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The teaching of authority control in schools of library and information science has been given little attention until recently. A 2002 article reported that only a little over a third of respondents to a questionnaire believed they had learned about authority control in school. This paper reports a survey of teachers to determine how much authority control is taught in school. Respondents all emphasized the importance of trying to teach authority control to all students of library science and enthusiastically shared their methodologies, while admitting that it is a difficult concept to get across to students. Teachers also face non-understanding from colleagues, lack of course time, and competition from technology courses.

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 1996, a study was undertaken at the University of Arkansas Libraries to evaluate the practice of front-end authority work for monographs copy cataloging. A sample of 283 name headings originating from Library of Congress, OCLC "Enhance" member, and general member copy was examined, and analysis revealed that 47.3 percent of headings correctly matched authority records already present in the library's local file. Another 41.3 percent exactly matched records in the OCLC authority file. These findings prompted the library to cease checking name headings at the point of cataloging. However, the level of inaccuracies present, combined with the value of authority records for cross-reference and note information, ensured that the Database Maintenance Unit would continue to review local headings reports and perform needed authority work.

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 1332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=1332,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1332, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1332)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considering the expansion of research output across the globe, along with the growing demand for quantitative tracking of research outcomes by government authorities and research institutions, the challenges of author identity are increasing. In recent years, a number of initiatives to help solve the author "name game" have been launched from all areas of the scholarly information market space. This article introduces the various author identification tools and services Thomson Reuters provides, including Distinct Author Sets and ResearcherID-which reflect a combination of automated clustering and author participation-as well as the use of other data types, such as grants and patents, to expand the universe of author identification. Industry-wide initiatives such as the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) are also described. Future author-related developments in ResearcherID and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge are also included.

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliographic data is used to describe resources held in the collections of libraries, archives and museums. That data is mostly available on the Web today and mostly as linked data. Also on the Web are the controlled vocabulary systems of name authority files, like the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), classification systems, and subject terms. These systems offer their own linked data to potentially help users find the information they want - whether at their local library or anywhere in the world that is willing to make their resources available. We have found it beneficial to merge authority data for names on a global level, as the entities are relatively clear. That is not true for subject concepts and terminology that have categorisation systems developed according to varying principles and schemes and are in multiple languages. Rather than requiring everyone in the world to use the same categorisation/classification system in the same language, we know that the Web offers us the opportunity to add descriptors assigned around the world using multiple systems from multiple perspectives to identify our resources. Those descriptors add value to refine searches, help users worldwide and share globally what each library does locally.

0.0012880121 = product of:
  0.0051520485 = sum of:
    0.0051520485 = weight(_text_:information in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051520485 = score(doc=3691,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Mit großer Spannung wurde der Vortrag von Elisabeth Niggemann und Reiner Diedrichs über das weitere Vorgehen nach Abschluss des Projekts »Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2)« erwartet. Unter dem programmatischen Titel »Hinter dem Horizont geht es weiter« stellten der Vorsitzende der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme und die Generaldirektorin Der Deutschen Bibliothek vor, wie die Internationalisierung der deutschen Standards im Einzelnen aussehen soll, und welche Maßnahmen erforderlich sind. Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme hatte in ihrer Herbstsitzung 2004 verschiedene Beschlüsse getroffen, welche die Zusammenarbeit der Verbundsysteme fördern und erleichtern sollen. Dazu gehören u. a. die Entwicklung eines prototypischen Verfahrens für einen Neukatalogisierungsdienst mit einheitlichen Datenstrukturen und einheitlichen Formatanwendungen, die Verwendung von MARC21 als einheitlichem Austauschformat und die Entwicklung eines Matchkey-Verfahrens zur verbundübergreifenden Titelerkennung. Außerdem wurden grundsätzliche Anforderungen an das künftige Regelwerk und für eine Reorganisation der Normdatenarbeit formuliert, die die Ziele der Arbeitsgemeinschaft effektiv unterstützen sollen. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat diese Beschlüsse in seiner 9. Sitzung im Dezember 2004 begrüßt, bestätigt und konkretisiert. Nun gilt es, die Beschlüsse zügig umzusetzen, um die gesteckten Ziele zu verfolgen: einfacher Zugang zu bibliografischer Information national wie international für wissenschaftliche und andere persönliche Nutzer, leichte Austauschbarkeit von bibliografischer Information zwischen professionellen Benutzergruppen und Anwendern und last but not least Kostenreduktion bei der Erschließung. Im Anschluss stellte Renate Gömpel, Die Deutsche Bibliothek, die IFLA-CDNL Allianz für Bibliografische Standards (ICABS) vor, die während des Weltkongresses Bibliothek und Information in Berlin als ein neues strategisches Vorhaben ins Leben gerufen wurde. Mit ICABS streben die National Library of Australia, die Library of Congress, die British Library, die Koninklijke Bibliotheek der Niederlande und Die Deutsche Bibliothek gemeinsam mit der Biblioteca Nacional Portugals, der IFLA und der Conference of Directors of National Libraries (CDNL) die Fortsetzung und Unterstützung von Schlüsselaktivitäten im Bereich der bibliografischen und der Ressourcenkontrolle sowie damit zusammenhängender Formatstandards an. Die Allianz führt damit die Arbeit der Geschäftsstellen der früheren IFLA-Kernprogramme UBCIM (Universal Bibliographic Control and International MARC) und UDT (Universal Dataflow and Telecommunications) fort. In dem Vortrag wurde ein Überblick über Ziele und Vorhaben von ICABS, ihre Organisation sowie deren Arbeit als Dach für facettenreiche Aktivitäten im Bereich bibliografischer Standards gegeben. Koordiniert wird die Arbeit von ICABS durch das Advisory Board, das aus Vertretern aller beteiligten Institutionen und Organisationen besteht und dessen Vorsitz gegenwärtig ebenso wie das Sekretariat bei Der Deutschen Bibliothek angesiedelt ist. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat bereits erste Planungen für eine Veranstaltung beim 95. Deutschen Bibliothekartag in Dresden angestellt. Dort soll über den Stand der Internationalisierung des deutschen Regelwerks, den Umstieg auf MARC21 und die Weiterentwicklung der Normdateien berichtet werden. Darüber hinaus erwartet die Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer ein Bericht aus dem Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (JSC) über den Stand der AACR3. Es wird sicherlich spannend, merken Sie sich diesen Termin vor."

0.0010516574 = product of:
  0.0042066295 = sum of:
    0.0042066295 = weight(_text_:information in 2317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0042066295 = score(doc=2317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.068573356 = fieldWeight in 2317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2317)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)