Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05070197 = product of:
  0.10140394 = sum of:
    0.10140394 = sum of:
      0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0645009 = score(doc=1050,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
      0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03690304 = score(doc=1050,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1050, 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=1050)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) presents a complex conceptual model. Because of this, it is not easy for everyone to understand. The purpose of this paper is to make some of the more difficult aspects of the FRBR model, in particular the Croup 1 entities work, expression, manifestation, and item, easier to understand by placing FRBR in the context of what it is: a conceptual entity-relationship model. To this end, a definition of the term "model" is presented, a variety of types and junctions of models are introduced, conceptual models are discussed in detail, modeling an abstraction is explained, and different ways of interpreting FRBR are suggested. Various models used in the history of cataloging are introduced to place FRBR in the context of the historical development of document models.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.023040833 = product of:
  0.046081666 = sum of:
    0.046081666 = product of:
      0.09216333 = sum of:
        0.09216333 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09216333 = score(doc=799,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 799, 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=799)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In current cataloging practice, the identification of an item as a member of a particular work set is accomplished by assigning a main entry heading, or main entry citation, in the bibliographic record representing that item. The main entry citation is normally comprised of a primary author name and the uniform title associated with the work. However, the quality of bibliographic records varies, and this means of identification is not universally used by catalogers. Thus, consistent identification and retrieval of records representing editions of works is not guaranteed. Research is reported that investigates the extent to which records that are members of a particular work set may be automatically identified as such.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Bibliographic database quality"

0.02280451 = product of:
  0.04560902 = sum of:
    0.04560902 = product of:
      0.09121804 = sum of:
        0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09121804 = score(doc=6184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 6184, 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=6184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02280451 = product of:
  0.04560902 = sum of:
    0.04560902 = product of:
      0.09121804 = sum of:
        0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2719) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09121804 = score(doc=2719,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 2719, 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=2719)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the equivalence relationship as presented by Barbara B. Tillett in her taxonomy of bibliographic relationships. Tillett's definition of equivalence comprised of two parts, first, that equivalence holds between exacts copies of bibliographic items or documents, and second, that it may hold between an original item and a reproduction, if the intellectual content and authorship are presented. It is proposed that this definition is too restrictive, excluding relationships among items that may, based an contexts of use, act as equivalent. Further, it is suggested that a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships be constructed as holding between document representations as opposed to documents themselves. A revised definition of equivalence is offered in which equivalence relationships may hold among document representations in which one or more document properties described in the representations are shared. One advantage of this revision is that it subsumes Tillett's shared characteristic relationship, simplifying the taxonomy.

0.018812763 = product of:
  0.037625525 = sum of:
    0.037625525 = product of:
      0.07525105 = sum of:
        0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07525105 = score(doc=5626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 5626, 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=5626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Displays grouping retrieved bibliographic record sets into categories or clusters may communicate search results more quickly and effectively to users than current catalog displays providing long alphabetical lists of records. Bibliographic records associated with three large fiction works are analyzed to discover the presence of relationship-type indicators. Preliminary results show that 94% of the records in this study contained indicators of cluster type that would allow them to be correctly identified automatically. However, the clusters formed by the relationship types used here are of unequal size. Because of this, it is suggested that alternative strategies be investigated for their potential to create more useful clustered displays.

0.016125225 = product of:
  0.03225045 = sum of:
    0.03225045 = product of:
      0.0645009 = sum of:
        0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0645009 = score(doc=100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Displays grouping retrieved bibliographic record sets into categories or clusters may communicate search results more quickly and effectively to users than current catalogs providing long alphabetical lists of records. In this research, automatic clustering based on types of relationships, including translation, presence of illustrations, etc., is proposed as a model for clustering. Bibliographic records associated with three large fiction works (Kidnapped by Robert Lewis Stevenson, Bleak House by Charles Dickens, and Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas) are analyzed to discover the presence of relationship-type indicators to determine the extent to which an automatic clustering program would succeed in clustering work records. Preliminary results show that 94 percent of the records in this study contained indicators of cluster type that would allow them to be correctly identified automatically

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=908,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 2nd objective of the catalogue, adopted internationally in the Paris Principles, requires that cataloguing records for particular authors and particular works be easily identified (IFLA 1991). Analysis of the requirements of the 2nd objective of the catalogue shows that it has 2 components: a retrieval component; and a display component; and that it may be interpreted broadly to include related works and works about a work or author. Investigates 2 schemes for their contributions to the creation of online catalogue displays that meet 2nd objective requirements. Analyzes the catalogue filing rule scheme to show that author and work displays in card catalogues have been composed of many groups or classes of materials that may also be used to create organized displays in online catalogues. The groups used in the filing rule scheme are based on relationships among items. Proposes a scheme based on Tillet's bibliographic relationship taxonomy to discover additional types of relationships that may be used to group record in online catalogue displays leading to a new scheme for the creation of organized display in online catalogues. Incorporates elements from both the filing rule scheme and the bibliographic relationship taxonomy to create displays that meet the requirements of the 2nd objective more fully than either scheme does alone

0.011402255 = product of:
  0.02280451 = sum of:
    0.02280451 = product of:
      0.04560902 = sum of:
        0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04560902 = score(doc=4612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 4612, 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=4612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines a user categorisation of documents related to a particular literary work. 50 study participants completed an unconstrained sorting rask of documents related to Charles Dickens' 'A christmas carol'. After they had finished the sorting task, participants wrote desriptions of the attributes they used to create each group. Content analysis of theses descriptions revealed categories of attributes used for grouping. Participants used physical format, audience, content description, pictorial elements, usage, and language most frequently for grouping. Many of the attributes participants used for grouping already exist in bibliographic records and may be used to cluster records related to works automatically in online catalogue displays. The attributes used by people in classifying or grouping documents related to a work may be used to guide the design of summary online catalogue work displays