-
Coyle, K.: Future considerations : the functional library systems record (2004)
0.07
0.06760262 = product of:
0.13520524 = sum of:
0.13520524 = sum of:
0.086001195 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.086001195 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04920405 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.
- Source
- Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174
-
Coyle, K.: FRBR, before and after : a look at our bibliographic models (2016)
0.07
0.065655485 = product of:
0.13131097 = sum of:
0.13131097 = sum of:
0.10055844 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10055844 = score(doc=2786,freq=14.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.56900144 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030752534 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This book looks at the ways that we define the things of the bibliographic world, and in particular how our bibliographic models reflect our technology and the assumed goals of libraries. There is, of course, a history behind this, as well as a present and a future. The first part of the book begins by looking at the concept of the 'work' in library cataloging theory, and how that concept has evolved since the mid-nineteenth century to date. Next it talks about models and technology, two areas that need to be understood before taking a long look at where we are today. It then examines the new bibliographic model called Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the technical and social goals that the FRBR Study Group was tasked to address. The FRBR entities are analyzed in some detail. Finally, FRBR as an entity-relation model is compared to a small set of Semantic Web vocabularies that can be seen as variants of the multi-entity bibliographic model that FRBR introduced.
- Content
- Part I. Work, model, technologyThe work -- The model -- The technology -- Part II. FRBR and other solutions -- Introduction -- FRBR : standard for international sharing -- The entity-relation model -- What is modeled in FRBR -- Does FRBR meet FRBR's objectives? -- Some issues that arise -- Bibliographic description and the Semantic Web.
- Date
- 12. 2.2016 16:22:58
-
Coyle, K.: MELVYL input ten years later : the changing face of our bibliographic file (1992)
0.03
0.030406015 = product of:
0.06081203 = sum of:
0.06081203 = product of:
0.12162406 = sum of:
0.12162406 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12162406 = score(doc=2391,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 2391, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2391)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Coyle, K.: Understanding the Semantic Web : bibliographic data and metadata (2010)
0.02
0.02280451 = product of:
0.04560902 = sum of:
0.04560902 = product of:
0.09121804 = sum of:
0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09121804 = score(doc=4169,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 4169, 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=4169)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Coyle, K.: Simplicity in data models (2015)
0.02
0.019749286 = product of:
0.03949857 = sum of:
0.03949857 = product of:
0.07899714 = sum of:
0.07899714 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07899714 = score(doc=2025,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 2025, 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=2025)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Evolving from database models using punch cards, strict linear relational databases and predefined object-oriented data structures, the triple statements underlying Semantic Web technologies bypass many design constraints to offer endless flexibility. Overcoming structure is challenging, especially the relatively recent structure formalized in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Though geared to easier access and interoperability and recognizing a multilevel bibliographic model, FRBR remains tied to translating entity-relation diagrams to data structures. Resource Description Framework (RDF) provides a more flexible way to express concepts, in which bibliographic models may be thought of as graphs of properties and relationships. But even RDF-based models can undermine that flexibility by mixing concept classes and data structures. The advantage of RDF classes is to provide semantics that enable a user to focus on similarities, not bound by contextual constraints.and success metrics.
-
Coyle, K.: FRBR, twenty years on (2015)
0.02
0.018812763 = product of:
0.037625525 = sum of:
0.037625525 = product of:
0.07525105 = sum of:
0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07525105 = score(doc=2174,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 2174, 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=2174)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The article analyzes the conceptual model of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) as a general model of bibliographic data and description that can be interpreted, as needed, to serve the needs of various communities. This is illustrated with descriptions of five different implementations based on the concepts in FRBR: FRBRER (entity-relation), FRBROO (object oriented), FRBRCore (FRBR entities as linked data), (FRBR entities within the commerce model), and FaBiO (FRBR indecs as a basis for academic document types). The author argues that variant models show the strength of the FRBR concepts, and should be encouraged.
-
Baker, T.; Bermès, E.; Coyle, K.; Dunsire, G.; Isaac, A.; Murray, P.; Panzer, M.; Schneider, J.; Singer, R.; Summers, E.; Waites, W.; Young, J.; Zeng, M.: Library Linked Data Incubator Group Final Report (2011)
0.01
0.0076015037 = product of:
0.0152030075 = sum of:
0.0152030075 = product of:
0.030406015 = sum of:
0.030406015 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030406015 = score(doc=4796,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.045395818 = queryNorm
0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The mission of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group, chartered from May 2010 through August 2011, has been "to help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web, by bringing together people involved in Semantic Web activities - focusing on Linked Data - in the library community and beyond, building on existing initiatives, and identifying collaboration tracks for the future." In Linked Data [LINKEDDATA], data is expressed using standards such as Resource Description Framework (RDF) [RDF], which specifies relationships between things, and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs, or "Web addresses") [URI]. This final report of the Incubator Group examines how Semantic Web standards and Linked Data principles can be used to make the valuable information assets that library create and curate - resources such as bibliographic data, authorities, and concept schemes - more visible and re-usable outside of their original library context on the wider Web. The Incubator Group began by eliciting reports on relevant activities from parties ranging from small, independent projects to national library initiatives (see the separate report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Use Cases) [USECASE]. These use cases provided the starting point for the work summarized in the report: an analysis of the benefits of library Linked Data, a discussion of current issues with regard to traditional library data, existing library Linked Data initiatives, and legal rights over library data; and recommendations for next steps. The report also summarizes the results of a survey of current Linked Data technologies and an inventory of library Linked Data resources available today (see also the more detailed report, Library Linked Data Incubator Group: Datasets, Value Vocabularies, and Metadata Element Sets) [VOCABDATASET].
