Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011199882 = product of:
  0.04479953 = sum of:
    0.04479953 = weight(_text_:data in 2436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04479953 = score(doc=2436,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.30255508 = fieldWeight in 2436, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2436)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to support resource discovery. The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find resources that correspond to the user's stated search criteria: identify-i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristics select-i.e., to select a resource that is appropriate to the user's needs obtain-i.e., to acquire or access the resource described. The data created using RDA to describe an entity associated with a resource (a person, family, corporate body, concept, etc.) are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find information on that entity and on resources associated with the entity identify-i.e., to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar names, etc. clarify-i.e., to clarify the relationship between two or more such entities, or to clarify the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entity is known understand-i.e., to understand why a particular name or title, or form of name or title, has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity.

0.0103460075 = product of:
  0.04138403 = sum of:
    0.04138403 = weight(_text_:data in 4668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04138403 = score(doc=4668,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 4668, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4668)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In den letzten Jahren wurde eine Vielzahl an Datensets aus Kultur- und Wissenschaftseinrichtungen als Linked Open Data veröffentlicht. Auch das deutsche Bibliothekswesen hat sich aktiv an den Entwicklungen im Bereich Linked Data beteiligt. Die zuvor lediglich in den Bibliothekskatalogen vorliegenden Daten können weiteren Sparten geöffnet und so auf vielfältige Weise in externe Anwendungen eingebunden werden. Gemeinsames Ziel bei der Veröffentlichung der Bibliotheksdaten als Linked Data ist außerdem, Interoperabilität und Nachnutzbarkeit zu ermöglichen und sich auf diese Weise stärker mit anderen Domänen außerhalb der Bibliothekswelt zu vernetzen. Es bestehen sowohl Linked-Data-Services einzelner Bibliotheken als auch der deutschen Bibliotheksverbünde. Trotz ihres gemeinsamen Ziels sprechen die bestehenden Services nicht die gleiche Sprache, da sie auf unterschiedlichen Modellierungen basieren. Um die Interoperabilität dieser Datenquellen zu gewährleisten, sollten die Dienste künftig einer einheitlichen Modellierung folgen. Vor diesem Hintergrund wurde im Januar 2012 eine Arbeitsgruppe gegründet, in der alle deutschen Bibliotheksverbünde, die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek sowie einige weitere interessierte und engagierte Kolleginnen und Kollegen mit entsprechender Expertise vertreten sind. Die Gruppe Titeldaten agiert seit April 2012 als Untergruppe des Kompetenzzentrums Interoperable Metadaten (DINI-AG KIM). Die Moderation und Koordination liegt bei der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. Im Dezember 2012 schloss sich auch der OBVSG der Arbeitsgruppe an. Die Schweizerische Nationalbibliothek folgte im Mai 2013. Vorliegende Empfehlungen sollen zu einer Harmonisierung der RDFRepräsentationen von Titeldaten im deutschsprachigen Raum beitragen und so möglichst einen Quasi-Standard etablieren. Auch international wird an der Herausforderung gearbeitet, die bestehenden bibliothekarischen Strukturen in die heute zur Verfügung stehenden Konzepte des Semantic Web zu überführen und ihren Mehrwert auszuschöpfen. Die neuesten internationalen Entwicklungen im Bereich der Bereitstellung bibliografischer Daten im Semantic Web wie die Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative der Library of Congress (BIBFRAME) haben ebenfalls das Ziel, ein Modell zur RDF-Repräsentation bibliothekarischer Daten bereitzustellen. Die Gruppe Titeldaten beobachtet diese Entwicklungen und beabsichtigt, die Erfahrungen und Anforderungen der deutschsprachigen Bibliothekswelt mit einzubringen. Dabei werden einerseits international erarbeitete Empfehlungen aufgegriffen und andererseits Impulse aus der nationalen Kooperation dort eingebracht. Die hier verwendeten Properties könnten z. B. als Grundlage für ein Mapping zu BIBFRAME dienen.

0.0077595054 = product of:
  0.031038022 = sum of:
    0.031038022 = weight(_text_:data in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031038022 = score(doc=1271,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

0.0051730038 = product of:
  0.020692015 = sum of:
    0.020692015 = weight(_text_:data in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020692015 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.1397442 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.