Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01828933 = product of:
  0.07315732 = sum of:
    0.07315732 = weight(_text_:data in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07315732 = score(doc=2808,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.49407038 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to consider the nature of community information (CI) and proposes a data model, based on the entity-relationship approach adopted in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), which may assist with the development of future metadata standards for CI systems. Design/methodology/approach - The two main data structure standards for CI, namely the element set developed by the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS) and the MARC21 Format for CI, are compared by means of a mapping exercise, after which an entity-relationship data model is constructed, at a conceptual level, based on the definitions of CI found in the literature. Findings - The AIRS and MARC21 data structures converge to a fair degree, with MARC21 providing for additional detail in several areas. However, neither structure is systematically and unambiguously defined, suggesting the need for a data model. An entity-relationship data modelling approach, similar to that taken in FRBR, yielded a model that could be used as the basis for future standards development and research. It was found to effectively cover both the AIRS and MARC21 element sets. Originality/value - No explicit data model exists for CI, and there has been little discussion reported about what data elements are required to support CI seeking.

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 5143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=5143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 5143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5143)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The four FRBR user tasks have become widely accepted as functions of the library catalog, but there have been only sporadic discussions concerning their validity and sufficiency, despite their modification in the models subsequently presented in the FRAD, FRSAD, and draft FRBR-LRM reports. This article presents a critique of the four variant sets of user tasks, and proposes an extended set of six generic end-user tasks, applicable to both bibliographic and authority data: locate, collocate, connect, identify, select, and obtain. The article also outlines their interrelationships and suggests those tasks that may be particularly well supported by professional cataloging.