Search (338 results, page 17 of 17)

0.0057755527 = product of:
  0.011551105 = sum of:
    0.011551105 = product of:
      0.02310221 = sum of:
        0.02310221 = weight(_text_:systems in 1716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02310221 = score(doc=1716,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.14405504 = fieldWeight in 1716, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1716)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Essays live through nine present case studies of the use of EAD in specific organizations and projects. Those organizations include the Online Archive of California, the American Heritage Virtual Archive Project, the Research Libraries Group, Public Records Office of the UK, and its use in museums. Success seems to be the general conclusion of each of these case studies. Milestones reached included the creation of broad-based integrated access to archival finding aids, increased access to digital content for users, and redefining the definition and purpose of finding aids. Concerns about the future are also a theme in the case studies. Continuing challenges include improving access to primary sources, creating seamless technology, and assuring communication between competing cultural institutions for political dollars. Previous essays in this anthology discuss introductory concepts of EAD and its use in several institutional and government settings. However, the way in which EAD is transforming archival reference services is examined in the tenth essay, "Encoded Finding Aids as a Transforming Technology in Archival Reference Service." The author focuses an barriers such as technology, communications, and concerns but also discusses its potential to transform reference Services, including the standardization of finding aid information, increased search functions across finding aids, integration of finding aids with catalogs, and the human interface (self sufficiency, staff productivity, and need for education). The last essay in this anthology, "Popularizing the Finding Aid: Exploiting EAD to Enhance Online Discovery and Retrieval in Archival Information Systems by Diverse User Groups," describes the development of the traditional finding aid and how that process of development can be manipulated in light of EAD's advancing initiative. More importantly, the author presents ten strategies that may enhance browsing and retrieval in an EAD-based archival information system. In promoting EAD, the author notes that the "true potential of EAD does not lie in replicating the physical and intellectual form of the finding aid for online distribution. Rather, EAD allows archivists to contemplate how therr encoded finding aids might collectively populate a metadata infrastructure for more broadly conceived archival information systems" (p. 200). The ten strategies promoted include footnote chasing, function and repository scanning; subject, name, data, geographic, physical form or genre, top-down, and bottom-up searching. This anthology provides an excellent picture of the current state of encoded archival description an the Internet. The essays are well written and concise. The clear message is that EAD is working but that there is much work to be done to assure that archival information is easily located, available, and well described."

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 1955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=1955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 1955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1955)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In den Verbünden sind derzeit die beiden Bibliothekssysteme ALEPH 500 und PICA im Einsatz. In beiden Fällen handelt es sich um Systeme von international operierenden Herstellern. Beide Systeme sind MARC basiert und mussten an MAB2 angepasst werden. Der Südwestdeutsche Bibliotheksverbund (SWB) steht als einziger Verbund vor der Entscheidung für ein neues System. Der Österreichische Bibliothekenverbund (ÖBV) war Erstnutzer des Systems ALEPH 500 im deutschsprachigen Raum. Aus seiner Sicht waren die Anpassungen an das Datenhaltungskonzept sowie die Einführung der hierarchischen Strukturen am aufwändigsten. Die Nachnutzer Bibliotheks-Verbund Bayern (BVB), das Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (HBZ) und der Kooperative Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV) konnten die Anpassungen an das MAB2-Format einkaufen, die für den ÖBV vorgenommen worden sind. In allen Verbünden musste ALEPH 500 an die jeweiligen Verbundmodelle und Verbundfunktionalitäten angepasst werden. Für das PICA-System fielen Anpassungen an die MAB2-Struktur beim Erstanwender Gemeinsamer Bibliotheksverbund der Länder Bremen, Hamburg, MecklenburgVorpommern, Niedersachsen, SachsenAnhalt, Schleswig-Holstein und Thüringen (GBV) an, das Hessische Bibliotheks-Informationssystem (HeBIS) als Nachnutzer konnte die Anpassungen übernehmen. Der SWB löst zurzeit sein System ab. Die MARC/MAB-Kompatibilität ist in der Ausschreibung gefordert. Der Aufwand für die Anpassungen an das MAB2-Format konnten in den meisten Fällen nicht spezifiziert werden, da sie nicht von den Anpassungen an die jeweiligen Verbundmodelle zu trennen sind. Zur Bewertung eines Formatumstiegs ist es von großer Bedeutung, ob MAB als Austausch- und Katalogisierungsformat oder nur als Austauschformat mit einer eigenen abweichenden Katalogisierungsoberfläche eingesetzt wird. In den ALEPH-Verbünden BVB, HBZ und ÖVB ist MAB2 auch Intern- und Katalogisierungsformat. Im KOBV wird in den Lokalsystemen mit eigenen Katalogisierungsoberflächen katalogisiert. In den PICA-Verbünden ist MAB2 ausschließlich Austauschformat. Im neuen System des SWB soll MAB2 nur Austauschformat sein. Die PICA-Verbünde sehen einen Formatumstieg als eher unproblematisch an. Da Austausch- und Internformat unabhängig voneinander sind, wirkt sich eine Änderung des Austauschformats auf das Internformat und auf die Katalogisierungsoberfläche kaum aus. Für den Entwurf von Umstiegsszenarien ist die Möglichkeit einzubeziehen, dass möglicherweise nicht alle Bibliotheken gleichzeitig umsteigen können.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3656, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Der Ausschuss für wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken und Informationssysteme der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft hat sich in seiner letzten Herbstsitzung am 07.-08. Oktober 2004 mit folgenden Themen beschäftigt: Ergebnisse der Machbarkeitsstudie Der Deutschen Bibliothek zur Umstellung von RAK auf AACR2 Ziel der an Der Deutschen Bibliothek durchgeführten Studie war die Ermittlung der Rahmenbedingungen und Konsequenzen sowie des Zeitablaufs für einen Umstieg unter nutzerorientierten, bibliothekarischen, organisatorischen und vor allem auch betriebswirtschaftlichen Gesichtspunkten. Frau Dr. Niggemann (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) stellte im Ausschuss den Schlussbericht des Projekts vor. Die Ergebnisse ließen keine Umstände erkennen, die gegen eine Anwendung internationaler Formate und Regelwerke in Deutschland sprächen. Vielmehr ergäben sich daraus auch Vorteile für die Katalogisierung. Da trotz dieser klaren Sachlage weite Teile der bibliothekarischen Öffentlichkeit gegen einen Umstieg seien, empfehle Die Deutsche Bibliothek die schrittweise Internationalisierung deutscher Standards durch Umsetzung einzelner konsensfähiger Maßnahmen. Die Ergebnisse und Schlussfolgerungen des Berichts wurden anschließend im Ausschuss einer differenzierten Bewertung unterzogen - über das eventuelle Verbleiben bei den deutschen Regelwerken wurde Bedauern geäußert. Es sei allerdings fraglich, ob alleine durch den Wechsel des Regelwerkes bzw. der Formate die Grundproble me der deutschen Katalogisierungs- und Verbundstrukturen zu lösen seien. Einhellig kritisch bewertet wurde der hohe Kostenaufwand, mit dem ausweislich der Studie die Formalkatalogisierung in Deutschland noch immer betrieben werde. Hier müssten dringend neue Strategien entwickelt und aktiv verfolgt werden. Als Sofortmaßnahme mahnte derAusschuss die baldige Vereinheitlichung der Datenstrukturen in den Verbundsystemen an. Mittelfristig sieht der Ausschuss in der Internationalisierung der deutschen Informationsinfrastrukturen ein notwendiges und mit Priorität zu verfolgendes Ziel. Europäisches Netzwerk "Knowledge Exchange" Der Informationsaustausch zwischen den europäischen Fördereinrichtungen zu Fragen der Informa tions-Infrastrukturförderung beruht derzeit überwiegend auf jeweils bilateralen Kontakten, eine übergreifende Diskussion findet kaum statt. ZurVerbesserung dieser Kommunikation wird nun die Einrichtung von >Knowledge Exchange< vorbereitet, einem europäischen Netzwerk nationaler Förderinstitutionen bzw. Informationseinrichtungen, die auf jeweils nationaler Ebene für die Weiterentwicklung der Informationsund Kommunikationsstrukturen im Bereich Bildung und Wissenschaft (mit)verantwortlich sind. Neben der Gruppe »Wissenschaftliche Literaturversorgungsund Informationssysteme« (LIS) der DFG gehören dem Netzwerk das Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) aus Großbritannien, SURF, die niederländische Organisation für die Zusammenarbeit der Universitäten im Bereich der Informations-und Kommunikationstechnologie sowie das Rechenzentrum der dänischen Nationalbibliothek (DEF) an. Als Ziel dieses Netzwerks werden engere Abstimmungen der nationalen Strategien bzw. die Entwicklung gemeinsamer Strategien auf dem Gebiet der Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie angestrebt. Zudem würde der Informationsaustausch über aktuelle Entwicklungen der Informations-Infrastruktur in den europäischen Partnerländern wesentlich vereinfacht. Redundante Entwicklungen können auf diese Weise vermieden, Synergien genutzt werden. Darüber hinaus wird das Netzwerk als Ansprechpartner für außereuropäische Partner dienen. Die Initiative wurde vom Ausschuss für wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken und Informationssysteme einhellig begrüßt."

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) lay the foundation for a new generation of cataloging systems that recognize the difference between a particular work (e.g., Moby Dick), diverse expressions of that work (e.g., translations into German, Japanese and other languages), different versions of the same basic text (e.g., the Modern Library Classics vs. Penguin editions), and particular items (a copy of Moby Dick on the shelf). Much work has gone into finding ways to infer FRBR relationships between existing catalog records and modifying catalog interfaces to display those relationships. Relatively little work, however, has gone into exploring the creation of catalog records that are inherently based on the FRBR hierarchy of works, expressions, manifestations, and items. The Perseus Digital Library has created a new catalog that implements such a system for a small collection that includes many works with multiple versions. We have used this catalog to explore some of the implications of hierarchical catalog records for searching and browsing. Current online library catalog interfaces present many problems for searching. One commonly cited failure is the inability to find and collocate all versions of a distinct intellectual work that exist in a collection and the inability to take into account known variations in titles and personal names (Yee 2005). The IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) attempts to address some of these failings by introducing the concept of multiple interrelated bibliographic entities (IFLA 1998). In particular, relationships between abstract intellectual works and the various published instances of those works are divided into a four-level hierarchy of works (such as the Aeneid), expressions (Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), manifestations (a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), and items (my copy of a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid). In this formulation, each level in the hierarchy "inherits" information from the preceding level. Much of the work on FRBRized catalogs so far has focused on organizing existing records that describe individual physical books. Relatively little work has gone into rethinking what information should be in catalog records, or how the records should relate to each other. It is clear, however, that a more "native" FRBR catalog would include separate records for works, expressions, manifestations, and items. In this way, all information about a work would be centralized in one record. Records for subsequent expressions of that work would add only the information specific to each expression: Samuel Butler's translation of the Iliad does not need to repeat the fact that the work was written by Homer. This approach has certain inherent advantages for collections with many versions of the same works: new publications can be cataloged more quickly, and records can be stored and updated more efficiently.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=1339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Will there be a library catalogue in the future and, if so, what will it look like? In the last 25 years, the library catalogue has undergone an evolution, from card catalogues to OPACs, discovery systems and even linked data applications making library bibliographic data accessible on the web. At the same time, users expectations of what catalogues will be able to offer in the way of discovery have never been higher. This groundbreaking edited collection brings together some of the foremost international cataloguing practitioners and thought leaders, including Lorcan Dempsey, Emmanuelle Bermès, Marshall Breeding and Karen Calhoun, to provide an overview of the current state of the art of the library catalogue and look ahead to see what the library catalogue might become. Practical projects and cutting edge concepts are showcased in discussions of linked data and the Semantic Web, user expectations and needs, bibliographic control, the FRBRization of the catalogue, innovations in search and retrieval, next-generation discovery products and mobile catalogues.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 2839) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=2839,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2839, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2839)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Das internationale ORCID-Konsortium vernetzt Publizierende mit ihren Aufsätzen und Forschungsdaten über eine eindeutige ID. Weltweit besitzen bereits über 2 Millionen Forschende eine solche Kennung. Um ORCID in Deutschland zu fördern, wurde das Projektvorhaben "ORCID DE - Förderung der Open Researcher and Contributor ID in Deutschland" gebildet. Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) hat die Förderung des auf drei Jahre angelegten Projekts im Februar 2016 bewilligt. Durch die Integration in über 230 digitale Informationsinfrastrukturen erleichtert die Open Researcher and Contributor ID, kurz ORCID, die Pflege der Publikationsliste für Forscherinnen und Forscher. Die Idee dahinter ist folgende: Jede Person, die im wissenschaftlichen Arbeitsprozess einen Beitrag leistet, kann sich über die eindeutige ORCID-Kennung mit ihren Publikationen, Forschungsdaten und anderen Produkten des Forschungsprozesses (zum Beispiel Software) eindeutig vernetzen. Damit werden diese Objekte sichtbar und technisch verlässlich mit ihren Erschafferinnen und Erschaffern verbunden. ORCID bietet das Potenzial, bisher verteilte Informationen standardisiert zusammenzuführen und damit einen Überblick auf die Forschungsleistung von Forschenden zu ermöglichen. Durch die Offenheit des Systems und des großen internationalen Konsortiums ist ORCID auf dem Weg, ein langfristig gültiger Identifikator im wissenschaftlichen Alltag zu werden.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 3284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=3284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The original Statement of Principles - commonly known as the "Paris Principles" - was approved by the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in 1961. Its goal of serving as a basis for international standardization in cataloguing has certainly been achieved: most of the cataloguing codes that were developed worldwide since that time have followed the Principles strictly or at least to a high degree. More than fifty years later, having a common set of international cataloguing principles is still necessary as cataloguers and users around the world use online catalogues as search and discovery systems. At the beginning of the 21st century, IFLA produced a new statement of principles (published in 2009) applicable to online library catalogues and beyond. The current version has been reviewed and updated in 2014 and 2015, and approved in 2016. The 2009 Statement of Principles replaced and explicitly broadened the scope of the Paris Principles from just textual resources to all types of resources, and from just the choice and form of entry to all aspects of bibliographic and authority data used in library catalogues. It included not only principles and objectives, but also guiding rules that should be included in cataloguing codes internationally, as well as guidance on search and retrieval capabilities. This 2016 edition takes into consideration new categories of users, the open access environment, the interoperability and the accessibility of data, features of discovery tools and the significant change of user behaviour in general. This statement builds on the great cataloguing traditions of the world, as well as on the conceptual models in the IFLA Functional Requirements family.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Equally fallacious is the statement that support for the "clustering bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators" is an "important new feature" of RDA. AACR2 bibliographic records and the systems housing them can, did, and do show such relationships. Finally, whether users want or care to be made "more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats" is debatable. As an aim, it sounds less like what a user wants and more like what a cataloging librarian thinks a user should want. As Amanda Cossham writes in her recently issued doctoral thesis: "The explicit focus on user needs in the FRBR model, the International Cataloguing Principles, and RDA: Resource Description and Access does not align well with the ways that users use, understand, and experience library catalogues nor with the ways that they understand and experience the wider information environment. User tasks, as constituted in the FRBR model and RDA, are insufficient to meet users' needs." (p. 11, emphasis in the original)

0.004764588 = product of:
  0.009529176 = sum of:
    0.009529176 = product of:
      0.019058352 = sum of:
        0.019058352 = weight(_text_:systems in 3082) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019058352 = score(doc=3082,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.118839346 = fieldWeight in 3082, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3082)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Electronic Cataloging is the undertaking of three pioneers in library science: Sheila S. Intner, Sally C. Tseng, and Mary L. Larsgaard, who co-edited Maps and Related Cartographic Materials: Cataloging Classification, and Bibliographic Control (Haworth, 2000). With illustrations, references, additional reading lists, and case studies, this research tool offers you tips and strategies to make metadata work for you and your library. No one currently involved in information cataloging should be without this book! For a complete list of contents, visit our Web site at www.HaworthPress.com. Electronic Cataloging: AACR2 and Metadata for Serials and Monographs is a collection of papers about recent developments in metadata and its practical applications in cataloging. Acknowledged experts examine a wide variety of techniques for managing serials and monographs using standards and schemas like MARC, AACR2, ISSN, ISBD, and Dublin Core. From the broadest introduction of metadata usage to the revisions of AACR2 through 2000, this book offers vital analysis and strategy for achieving Universal Bibliographic Control. Electronic Cataloging is divided into three parts. The first is an introduction to metadata, what it is, and its relationship to the library in general. The second portion focuses in more an how metadata can be utilized by a library system and the possibilities in the near future. The third portion is very specific, dealing with individual standards of metadata and elements, such as AACR2 and MARC, as well as current policies and prospects for the future. Information covered in Electronic Cataloging includes: an overview of metadata and seriality and why it is important to the cataloging community Universal Bibliographic Control: what has succeeded so far in cataloging and how metadata will evolve the step-by-step process for creating an effective metadata repository for the community the inherent problems that accompany cataloging nonprint research materials, such as electronic serials and the Web metadata schemas and the use of controlled vocabularies and classification systems standards of metadata, including MARC, Dublin Core, RDF, and AACR2, with emphasis an the revisions and efforts made with AACR2 through 2000 an overview of the ISSN (International Serials Standard Number) and its relationships to current codes and metadata standards, including AACR2 and much more!

0.0047157193 = product of:
  0.0094314385 = sum of:
    0.0094314385 = product of:
      0.018862877 = sum of:
        0.018862877 = weight(_text_:systems in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018862877 = score(doc=3401,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.11762045 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This brief and gentle introduction to some key concepts laid out in the IFLA-produced Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records paper should be read by any librarian wondering what all the "ferber" fuss is about. Scratch that. It should be read by any librarian period. It's time for us to admit our library catalogs are a mess from a user's perspective, and FRBR can provide at least a partial solution to the problems we face in fixing our systems. Therefore, knowledge of the basic concepts that are already beginning to transform our bibliographic systems should be considered basic, foundational, professional knowledge. So start here, if you must, but then feel free to follow up with the full report.

Content

National FRBR experiments The larger the bibliographic database, the greater the effect of "FRBR-like" design in reducing the appearance of duplicate records. LC, RLG, and OCLC, all influenced by FRBR, are experimenting with the redesign of their databases. LC's Network Development and MARC Standards Office has posted at its web site the results of some of its investigations into FRBR and MARC, including possible display options for bibliographic information. The design of RLG's public catalog, RedLightGreen, has been described as "FRBR-ish" by Merrilee Proffitt, RLG's program officer. If you try a search for a prolific author or much-published title in RedLightGreen, you'll probably find that the display of search results is much different than what you would expect. OCLC Research has developed a prototype "frbrized" database for fiction, OCLC FictionFinder. Try a title search for a classic title like Romeo and Juliet and observe that OCLC includes, in the initial display of results (described as "works"), a graphic indicator (stars, ranging from one to five). These show in rough terms how many libraries own the work-Romeo and Juliet clearly gets a five. Indicators like this are something resource sharing staff can consider an "ILL quality rating." If you're intrigued by FRBR's possibilities and what they could mean to resource sharing workflow, start talking. Now is the time to connect with colleagues, your local and/or consortial system vendor, RLG, OCLC, and your professional organizations. Have input into how systems develop in the FRBR world."

0.0044188877 = product of:
  0.008837775 = sum of:
    0.008837775 = product of:
      0.01767555 = sum of:
        0.01767555 = weight(_text_:22 in 2165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01767555 = score(doc=2165,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2165, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2004 14:33:26

0.0044188877 = product of:
  0.008837775 = sum of:
    0.008837775 = product of:
      0.01767555 = sum of:
        0.01767555 = weight(_text_:22 in 3124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01767555 = score(doc=3124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 3124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2005 18:53:53

0.0044188877 = product of:
  0.008837775 = sum of:
    0.008837775 = product of:
      0.01767555 = sum of:
        0.01767555 = weight(_text_:22 in 3042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01767555 = score(doc=3042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 3042, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2009 10:44:16

0.0038503686 = product of:
  0.007700737 = sum of:
    0.007700737 = product of:
      0.015401474 = sum of:
        0.015401474 = weight(_text_:systems in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015401474 = score(doc=175,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.096036695 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 33(2006) no.1, S.57-58 (V. Francu):"The work is a collection of major contributions of qualified professionals to the issues aroused by the most controversial alternative to organizing the bibliographic universe today: the conceptual model promoted by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) known by the name of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). The main goals of the work are to clarify the fundamental concepts and terminology that the model operates with, inform the audience about the applicability of the model to different kinds of library materials and bring closer to those interested the experiments undertaken and the implementation of the model in library systems worldwide. In the beginning, Patrick LeBoeuf, the chair of the IFLA FRBR Review Group, editor of the work and author of two of the articles included in the collection, puts together in a meaningful way articles about the origins and development of the FRBR model and how it will evolve, thus facilitating a gradual understanding of its structure and functionalities. He describes in the Introduction the FRBR entities as images of bibliographic realities insisting on the "expression debate". Further he concentrates on the ongoing or planned work still needed (p. 6) for the model to be fully accomplished and ultimately offer the desired bibliographic control over the actual computerized catalogues. The FRBR model associated but not reduced to the "FRBR tree" makes it possible to map the existing linear catalogues to an ontology, or semantic Web by providing a multitude of relationships among the bibliographic entities it comprises.
The third section is opened by an emblematic article of Barbara Tillett about the impact the implementation of the FRBR model has on future library catalogues. The novelty brought by the model is expected to influence both the cataloguing codes and practice and the design of the new library systems. Implementation issues are also treated by Maja flumer and Gerhard Riesthuis in an article describing the application of the FRBR model to the Slovenian national bibliography. Maja flumer reports another instance of the implementation of FRBR, namely the European Research Initiative. The author describes the initiative originating from FLAG (European Library Automation Group) and IFLA and proposes the agenda of future research and action. The next experiment described by Thomas Hickey and Edward O'Neil brings to our attention an algorithm developed at OCLC that identifies sets of works for collocation purposes. By so doing, the FRBR model is applied to the aggregate works existing in the huge and rapidly growing OCLC's WorldCat. An application of the FRBR conceptual approach to UNESCO's ISIS retrieval software is presented by Roberto Sturman as his personal experiment. The database structure and the relationships between entities are explained together with their functionalities in three different interfaces. The practical benefits of applying the FRBR model to enhanced displays of bibliographic records in online catalogues are explored in the article of Jacqueline Radebaugh and Corey Keith. The FRBR Display Tool, based on XML technologies, was "developed to transform bibliographic data found in MARC 21 record files into meaningful displays by grouping them into [...] FRBR entities" (p. 271). The last section, by Dick Miller, is dedicated to a rather futuristic view of cataloguing, which the editor calls "a revolutionary alternative to the comparatively conservative and `traditional' approach that FRBR represents" (p. 11). XOBIS, like the previously mentioned application, uses XML technologies to reorganize bibliographic and authority data elements into an integrated structure.

0.0038503686 = product of:
  0.007700737 = sum of:
    0.007700737 = product of:
      0.015401474 = sum of:
        0.015401474 = weight(_text_:systems in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015401474 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.096036695 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems

Subject

Information storage and retrieval systems

0.0035351103 = product of:
  0.0070702205 = sum of:
    0.0070702205 = product of:
      0.014140441 = sum of:
        0.014140441 = weight(_text_:22 in 1733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014140441 = score(doc=1733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1733, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1733)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2003 12:13:13

0.0035351103 = product of:
  0.0070702205 = sum of:
    0.0070702205 = product of:
      0.014140441 = sum of:
        0.014140441 = weight(_text_:22 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014140441 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Libraries: Tools for Education and Development" war das Motto der 70. IFLA-Generalkonferenz, dem Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, der vom 22.-27. August 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentinien, und damit erstmals in Lateinamerika stattfand. Rund 3.000 Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer, davon ein Drittel aus spanischsprachigen Ländern, allein 600 aus Argentinien, besuchten die von der IFLA und dem nationalen Organisationskomitee gut organisierte Tagung mit mehr als 200 Sitzungen und Veranstaltungen. Aus Deutschland waren laut Teilnehmerverzeichnis leider nur 45 Kolleginnen und Kollegen angereist, womit ihre Zahl wieder auf das Niveau von Boston gesunken ist. Erfreulicherweise gab es nunmehr bereits im dritten Jahr eine deutschsprachige Ausgabe des IFLA-Express. Auch in diesem Jahr soll hier über die Veranstaltungen der Division IV Bibliographic Control berichtet werden. Die Arbeit der Division mit ihren Sektionen Bibliography, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing sowie der neuen Sektion Knowledge Management bildet einen der Schwerpunkte der IFLA-Arbeit, die dabei erzielten konkreten Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen haben maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die tägliche Arbeit der Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. Erstmals wird auch ausführlich über die Arbeit der Core Activities ICABS und UNIMARC und der Information Technology Section berichtet.

0.0027226217 = product of:
  0.0054452433 = sum of:
    0.0054452433 = product of:
      0.010890487 = sum of:
        0.010890487 = weight(_text_:systems in 1789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010890487 = score(doc=1789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.0679082 = fieldWeight in 1789, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Ein umfangreicher Fragebogen wurde entwickelt, der unter anderem verlässliche Daten zu folgenden Fragestellungen ermitteln soll: - Welche Bibliothekssysteme sind im Einsatz? - Welche Bibliothekssysteme sind auf MARC konfigurierbar? - Wie groß ist der Datenbestand insgesamt? - Wie hoch ist der Fremddatenanteil? - Welche Fremddaten werden genutzt? - In welchen Formaten und Regelwerken liegen diese Fremddaten vor? Werden die genutzten Fremddaten unverändert übernommen? - Wenn sie geändert werden, geschieht dies maschinell oder manuell? - Werden Dublettenprüfungen eingesetzt? Dieser Fragebogen wurde als Online-Fragebogen konzipiert und über die Vorsitzenden der Sektionen des Deutschen Bibliotheksverbandes verschickt. Gleichzeitig wurden Fragestellungen für die Expertengruppen des Standardisierungsausschusses (Expertengruppen Formalerschließung, PND, GKD sowie MAB-Ausschuss) entwickelt. Spezielle Fragen, die die Besonderheiten der fortlaufenden Sammelwerke und Zeitschriften betreffen, wurden an die Zeitschriftendatenbank (ZDB) und die Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Datenbankteilnehmer der ZDB (AGDBT) gestellt. Gleichzeitig wurden diese Fragen auch externen Experten vorgelegt. Zu diesen Untersuchungsgegenständen gehören unter anderem: Vergleich von RAK und AACR unter folgenden Aspekten: - Ansetzung von persönlichen Namen - Individualisierung von Personennamen - Ansetzung von Gebietskörperschaften und Kongressen - Split entries bei fortlaufenden Sammelwerken - Transliterationen Vergleich von MAB und MARC unter folgenden Aspekten - Darstellung der Mehrbändigkeit - Darstellung der Nichtsortierzeichen - Verwendung von Pflichtcodes und Pflichtfeldern Der Vergleich beschränkt sich schwerpunktmäßig auf diejenigen Aspekte, die mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit bei einer Migration zu Konflikten führen werden. Die Ergebnisse des Vergleichs werden auf ihre Konsequenzen untersucht und zwar jeweils auf die verschiedenen Migrationsszenarien bezogen. Für die Errechnung der Kosten eines Umstiegs wird sich das Projekt eines externen Unternehmensberaters bedienen. Dabei geht es nicht nur um die Kosten einer Neuanschaffung bzw. der Umrüstung eines EDV-Systems. Die Kosten werden differenziert je nach Migrationsmodell errechnet. Darüber hinaus werden Folgekosten wie Anpassungen von Schnittstellen an das MARCFormat sowie die Fortbildung von Mitarbeitern kalkuliert. Es werden aber auch die Kosten errechnet, die bei einem "Nicht"-Umstieg entstehen. Dazu gehören die Kosten, die entstehen, wenn ein neues SoftwareSystem bei seiner Installierung auf MAB aufgerüstet werden muss. Hier werden Kalkulationen über entgangene Fremddatennutzung, entgangene Kooperationen, Kosten für Anpassungen von MARC-Daten an das MAB-Format u.dgl. aufgestellt. Dabei wird nicht nur der internationale Datentausch betrachtet, sondern auch der Datentausch zwischen MAB-Datenbanken. Für die Untersuchung betriebwirtschaftlicher Aspekte im Hinblick auf die Finanzierung eines Umstiegs oder der verschiedenen Umstiegsvarianten sowie des Verbleibs bei den bisherigen Systemen sind erste Kontakte mit Experten auf dem Gebiet der Kostenrechnung im Bibliothekswesen aufgenommen worden. Es haben außerdem Vorgespräche in Der Deutschen Bibliothek für den formalen Ablauf einer-Ausschreibung sowohl im Inland wie auch in den USA stattgefunden. Der Beirat regte an, den Projektplan stärker in Abhängigkeit von den Umstiegsszenarien zu systematisieren und hat eine stärkere Einbeziehung der Nutzersicht und der Konsequenzen eines Umstiegs für Fernleihe, Dokumentlieferung und OPAC empfohlen. Insbesondere die Anliegen der wissenschaftlichen Nutzer aus der Sicht der DFG und die Bedeutung des internationalen Informationsaustauschs sollen stärker akzentuiert werden. Abschließend wurden die nächsten Schritte von Frau Hoffmann skizziert: