Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

0.09134519 = product of:
  0.13701779 = sum of:
    0.10266554 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10266554 = score(doc=4184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 4184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4184)
    0.034352235 = product of:
      0.06870447 = sum of:
        0.06870447 = weight(_text_:classification in 4184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06870447 = score(doc=4184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; 39, nos.3/4

Source

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): hype or cure-all. Ed. by P. le Boeuf,

0.09036712 = product of:
  0.13555068 = sum of:
    0.11478357 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11478357 = score(doc=2610,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.5770728 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
    0.020767113 = product of:
      0.041534226 = sum of:
        0.041534226 = weight(_text_:22 in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041534226 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.08797313 = product of:
  0.13195969 = sum of:
    0.11478357 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11478357 = score(doc=1913,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.5770728 = fieldWeight in 1913, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1913)
    0.017176118 = product of:
      0.034352235 = sum of:
        0.034352235 = weight(_text_:classification in 1913) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034352235 = score(doc=1913,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1913, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1913)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.456-472

0.082512185 = product of:
  0.12376827 = sum of:
    0.103729464 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103729464 = score(doc=2614,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 2614, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2614)
    0.020038802 = product of:
      0.040077604 = sum of:
        0.040077604 = weight(_text_:classification in 2614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040077604 = score(doc=2614,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 2614, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2614)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine how parents select picture books for their children and which bibliographic data are important as they choose between different versions of the same title. Thirty-six parents of preschool children aged one to six years were interviewed and observed as they chose one version of the picture book Cinderella from among six bibliographic records and then selected from among six physical versions. Parents described the criteria and the reasons for their selections. The results indicate that the parents experienced difficulties using the library catalog and that the current bibliographic elements are inadequate.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.7, S.717-737

0.06982237 = product of:
  0.10473356 = sum of:
    0.08469476 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08469476 = score(doc=696,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 696, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=696)
    0.020038802 = product of:
      0.040077604 = sum of:
        0.040077604 = weight(_text_:classification in 696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040077604 = score(doc=696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Working group on Guidelines for (electronic) national bibliographies was established in 2004 has started the work with an analysis of users and contexts of use of national bibliographies (NB) in the digital age. National bibliographies are changing dramatically: they include more and more also bibliographic records for digital resources and national bibliographic agencies are increasingly complementing (or even replacing) printed versions of NB with electronic. The guidelines will be soon posted for the world-wide review; this paper gives and overview of the document prepared so far.

Content

Vortrag anlässlich: WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 73RD IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND COUNCIL 19-23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. - 89 - Bibliography with National Libraries and Classification and Indexing

0.0665787 = product of:
  0.09986805 = sum of:
    0.08555462 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08555462 = score(doc=5857,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 5857, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5857)
    0.0143134305 = product of:
      0.028626861 = sum of:
        0.028626861 = weight(_text_:classification in 5857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028626861 = score(doc=5857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; 39, nos.3/4

Source

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): hype or cure-all. Ed. by P. le Boeuf,

0.060896795 = product of:
  0.09134519 = sum of:
    0.0684437 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0684437 = score(doc=5858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 5858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5858)
    0.022901488 = product of:
      0.045802977 = sum of:
        0.045802977 = weight(_text_:classification in 5858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045802977 = score(doc=5858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 5858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; 39, nos.3/4

Source

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): hype or cure-all. Ed. by P. le Boeuf,

0.059826493 = product of:
  0.08973974 = sum of:
    0.05133277 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05133277 = score(doc=846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=846)
    0.038406964 = product of:
      0.07681393 = sum of:
        0.07681393 = weight(_text_:classification in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07681393 = score(doc=846,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 846, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The paper presents the approach of using the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model to investigate the complicated sets of relationships among different versions of a classification system for the purposes of specifying provenance of classification data and facilitating collaborative efforts for using and reusing classification data, particularly in a linked data setting. The long-term goal of this research goes beyond the Dewey Decimal Classification that is used as a case. It addresses the questions of if and how the modelling approach and the FRBR-based model itself can be generalized and applied to other classification systems, multilingual and multicultural vocabularies, and even non-KOS resources that share similar characteristics.

0.053764727 = product of:
  0.08064709 = sum of:
    0.04277731 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04277731 = score(doc=2284,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2284, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2284)
    0.037869778 = product of:
      0.075739555 = sum of:
        0.075739555 = weight(_text_:classification in 2284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075739555 = score(doc=2284,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.46547192 = fieldWeight in 2284, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) conceptual model defines entities, attributes and relationships as they relate to subject authority data. FRSAD includes two main entities, thema (any entity used as the subject of a work) and nomen (any sign or arrangement of signs that a thema is known by, referred to, or addressed as). In a given controlled vocabulary and within a domain, a nomen is the appellation of only one thema. The authors consider the question: can the FRSAD conceptual model be extended beyond controlled vocabularies (its original focus) to model classification data? Models that are developed based on the structures and functions of controlled vocabularies (such as thesauri and subject heading systems) often need to be adjusted or extended to accommodate classification systems that have been developed with different focused functions, structures and fundamental theories. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system and Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) are used as a case study to test applicability of the FRSAD model for classification data and the applicability of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) for modelling versions, such as different adaptations and different language editions.

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.053262964 = product of:
  0.079894446 = sum of:
    0.0684437 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0684437 = score(doc=2646,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.011450744 = product of:
      0.022901488 = sum of:
        0.022901488 = weight(_text_:classification in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022901488 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.047627907 = product of:
  0.14288372 = sum of:
    0.14288372 = sum of:
      0.08414545 = weight(_text_:classification in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08414545 = score(doc=1967,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = queryNorm
          0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
      0.05873827 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05873827 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.04714982 = product of:
  0.070724726 = sum of:
    0.05927398 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05927398 = score(doc=1917,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.2979991 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
    0.011450744 = product of:
      0.022901488 = sum of:
        0.022901488 = weight(_text_:classification in 1917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022901488 = score(doc=1917,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051092815 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 1917, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1917)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.517-541

0.04330585 = product of:
  0.12991755 = sum of:
    0.12991755 = sum of:
      0.08096899 = weight(_text_:classification in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08096899 = score(doc=1962,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.16271563 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = queryNorm
          0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
      0.048948556 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048948556 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17891833 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051092815 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.90-101

0.041913033 = product of:
  0.1257391 = sum of:
    0.1257391 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1257391 = score(doc=2501,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.63215154 = fieldWeight in 2501, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2501)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is a relatively new conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. While it is recognized among library experts, there is a considerable lack of user studies. A pilot study, consisting of three different tasks, was conducted to test the instruments for acquiring mental models of the bibliographic universe. Results show that users do not have a consistent mental model of the bibliographic universe and that various techniques used can be useful for acquiring individuals' mental models of the bibliographic universe. Of the three tasks, the one asking people to rank pairs of similar item according to substitutability revealed results that were closest to FRBR, while card sorting and concept mapping exercises failed to provide a single alternative model.

0.03492753 = product of:
  0.10478258 = sum of:
    0.10478258 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3350) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10478258 = score(doc=3350,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.52679294 = fieldWeight in 3350, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3350)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Since their beginnings, bibliographic information systems have been displaying results in the form of long, textual lists. With the development of new data models and computer technologies, the need for new approaches to present and interact with bibliographic data has slowly been maturing. To investigate how this could be accomplished, a prototype system, FrbrVis1, was designed to present work families within a bibliographic information system using information visualization. This paper reports on two user studies, a controlled and an observational experiment, that have been carried out to assess the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)-based against an existing system as well as to test four different hierarchical visual layouts. The results clearly show that FrbrVis offers better performance and user experience compared to the baseline system. The differences between the four hierarchical visualizations (Indented tree, Radial tree, Circlepack, and Sunburst) were, on the other hand, not as pronounced, but the Indented tree and Sunburst design proved to be the most successful, both in performance as well as user perception. The paper therefore not only evaluates the application of a visual presentation of bibliographic work families, but also provides valuable results regarding the performance and user acceptance of individual hierarchical visualization techniques.

0.03457649 = product of:
  0.103729464 = sum of:
    0.103729464 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103729464 = score(doc=2699,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 2699, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2699)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR, 1998), the study commissioned by IFLA, brings revolutionary changes in the way we see modern computer catalogues. The catalogue is not seen as a sequence of bibliographic records and a copy of a card catalogue, but as an interconnected network of related information. Implications of the new model for the future development of catalogues are discussed. Special attention is given to access points and relationships between entities and the changes those will bring into both the formal and subject cataloguing, and authority files.

0.03422185 = product of:
  0.10266554 = sum of:
    0.10266554 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10266554 = score(doc=4378,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 4378, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4378)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In 1998, the FRBR model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) was developed under the auspices of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). The library domain finally developed its conceptual model of the bibliographic universe and thus the basis for the development of novel bibliographic information systems. In 2017, the IFLA Library Reference Model (Riva, LeBoeuf and Zumer 2017) was formally accepted as an IFLA standard. The FRBR family of models as well as LRM all start from the user tasks that need to be enabled and supported by bibliographic information systems. The consolidation process included a detailed analysis of all entities, attributes and relationships defined by the FRBR family. In this paper, the main features of the model are presented and described. With IFLA LRM, we finally have a modern model, compatible with the semantic web.

0.031884328 = product of:
  0.095652975 = sum of:
    0.095652975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095652975 = score(doc=4146,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.480894 = fieldWeight in 4146, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4146)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to provide some insight into mental models of the bibliographic universe and how they compare with functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) as a conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. Design/methodology/approach - To get a more complete picture of the mental models, different elicitation techniques were used. The three tasks of the paper were: card-sorting, concept mapping and comparison task. The paper deals with comparison task, which consisted of interviews and rankings, and provides a discussion of the results of the paper as a whole. Findings - Results of the ranking part of the comparison task confirm the findings of concept mapping task. In both cases, while there are individual differences between mental models, on average they gravitate towards FRBR. Research limitations/implications - This is a small study and it provides only a glimpse of the implications of using FRBR as a conceptual basis for cataloguing. More FRBR-related user studies are needed, including similar studies on different groups of individuals and different types of materials, as well as practical studies of user needs and user interfaces. Practical implications - The results of this study are the first user-tested indication of the validity of FRBR as a conceptual basis for the future of cataloguing. Originality/value - This is the first published paper of mental models of the bibliographic universe and uses a unique combination of mental model elicitation techniques.

0.031884328 = product of:
  0.095652975 = sum of:
    0.095652975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095652975 = score(doc=395,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.480894 = fieldWeight in 395, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=395)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to build on of a previous study of mental models of the bibliographic universe, which found that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) conceptual model is intuitive. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 120 participants were presented with a list of bibliographic entities and six graphs each. They were asked to choose the graph they thought best represented the relationships between entities described. Findings - The graph based on the FRBR model was chosen by more than half of the participants and none of the alternatives stood out. This gives further indication that FRBR is an appropriate model of the bibliographic universe from users' standpoint. Research limitations/implications - The study only looked at the textual part of the bibliographic universe. Further research is needed for other types of materials. Practical implications - This research suggests that there should be a more positive attitude towards implementation of FRBR-based catalogues. Originality/value - This is one of only a handful of user studies relating to FRBR, which looks to be the backbone of catalogues for years to come. As such, the results should be of interest to everybody involved with catalogues, from cataloguers to the end-users.

0.031884328 = product of:
  0.095652975 = sum of:
    0.095652975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095652975 = score(doc=1769,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19890657 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051092815 = queryNorm
        0.480894 = fieldWeight in 1769, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1769)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.