Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.026605263 = product of:
  0.053210527 = sum of:
    0.053210527 = product of:
      0.10642105 = sum of:
        0.10642105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10642105 = score(doc=1998,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores the question "What is an International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) resource in the context of the Semantic Web, and what is the relationship of its description to the linked data?" This question is discussed against the background of the dichotomy between the description and access using the Semantic Web differentiation of the three logical layers: real-world objects, web of data, and special purpose (bibliographic) data. The representation of bibliographic data as linked data is discussed, distinguishing the description of a resource from the iconic/objective and the informational/subjective viewpoints. In the conclusion, the authors give views on possible directions of future development of the ISBD.

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "ISBD: The Bibliographic Content Standard "

0.025496218 = product of:
  0.050992437 = sum of:
    0.050992437 = product of:
      0.10198487 = sum of:
        0.10198487 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1914) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10198487 = score(doc=1914,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5770728 = fieldWeight in 1914, 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=1914)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper analyzes similarities and differences between FRBR entities and their representation in the Colon classification call numbers. Dealing with lack of organization in library shelves and in the lists of bibliographic records resulting from users' searches in our present online catalogues, the paper discusses the chance to organize bibliographic resources by FRBR entities using the model of the facet formula provided for call numbers in Colon Classification and by means of relevant, ready and useable extant data. Main results of this analysis are: correspondences between FRBR entities and categories expressed in Ranganathan's bibliographic system can be found; a sound but not completely FRBRized bibliographic arrangement can be reached by call numbers also in catalogues not structurally capable to satisfy FRBR model; in Ranganathan's classified catalogue semantic and semiotic cataloguing are perfectly integrated, giving access to bibliographic universe as a whole; facet formula for call numbers could be used as identifying device.

0.019749286 = product of:
  0.03949857 = sum of:
    0.03949857 = product of:
      0.07899714 = sum of:
        0.07899714 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07899714 = score(doc=2006,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since the end of the last century, catalogs have been changing more and more quickly. This change is following a recognizable course, beginning with the publication of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, passing through the reorganization of international cataloging principles, the revision of international standards of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (International Standard for Bibliographic Description), and the foundation of new cataloging codes, such as Resource Description and Access. While principles, models, and rules are well established, bibliographic formats seem to be a bottleneck and users seem far from libraries. This article aims to present an overview of current changes, potential convergences, developments, and weak points from Ranganathan's point of view.

0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=2002,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 2002, 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=2002)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The collection of nearly 1,000 piano rolls housed within the Department of Musicology and Cultural Heritage, University of Pavia, Cremona, Italy, remains in need of preservation. A digitalization project requires cataloging based on international cataloging standards. A distinction among instruments and media must be introduced and specific features of mechanical musical devices are to be identified. Four main classes of media have been identified: disks, pinned barrels, books, and rolls. Lastly, morphological peculiarities of the media must be examined to establish their correct and complete description within the International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) areas.

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "ISBD: The Bibliographic Content Standard "

0.013302632 = product of:
  0.026605263 = sum of:
    0.026605263 = product of:
      0.053210527 = sum of:
        0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053210527 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00922576 = product of:
  0.01845152 = sum of:
    0.01845152 = product of:
      0.03690304 = sum of:
        0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 4889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03690304 = score(doc=4889,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4889, 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=4889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:05:47