Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.033829853 = product of:
  0.067659706 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 2595, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2595)
    0.018829225 = product of:
      0.03765845 = sum of:
        0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03765845 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Academic libraries have moved toward providing social networking features, such as tagging, in their library catalogs. To explore whether user tags can enhance access to individual literary works, the author obtained a sample of individual works of English and American literature from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from a large academic library catalog and searched them in LibraryThing. The author compared match rates, the availability of subject headings and tags across various literary forms, and the terminology used in tags versus controlled-vocabulary headings on a subset of records. In addition, she evaluated the usefulness of available LibraryThing tags for the library catalog records that lacked subject headings. Options for utilizing the subject terms available in sources outside the local catalog also are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.03106409 = product of:
  0.06212818 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=3876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
    0.029574523 = product of:
      0.059149045 = sum of:
        0.059149045 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059149045 = score(doc=3876,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.28249177 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely

0.028191544 = product of:
  0.05638309 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Date

12. 2.2016 16:22:58

0.025098871 = product of:
  0.100395486 = sum of:
    0.100395486 = sum of:
      0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06273703 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.03765845 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03765845 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The author revisits the development of RDA from its inception in 2005 through to its initial release in 2010. The development effort is set in the context of an evolving digital environment that was transforming both the production and dissemination of information resources and the technologies used to create, store, and access data describing those resources. The author examines the interplay between strategic commitments to align RDA with new conceptual models, emerging database structures, and metadata developments in allied communities, on the one hand, and compatibility with AACR2 legacy databases on the other. Aspects of the development effort examined include the structuring of RDA as a resource description language, organizing the new standard as a working tool, and refining guidelines and instructions for recording RDA data.

Date

17. 5.2016 19:22:40

0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=1980,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discussions of cataloging and metadata education are popular in social media outlets, scholarly literature, conference meetings, and so on. This article, the third installment of a longitudinal study on the state of information organization (IO) education, analyzes the recent literature to identify new and continuing themes related to IO education. It provides an overview of the curricula of the 58 library and information science graduate programs in the United States and Canada accredited by the American Library Association (ALA). It examines the current conditions in 2012-2013 and compares them to data from earlier studies. It provides an overview of the types of IO courses available, program requirements, the number of schools offering IO courses, and the number of schools teaching those courses.

0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=3817,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.

0.012938853 = product of:
  0.051755413 = sum of:
    0.051755413 = product of:
      0.10351083 = sum of:
        0.10351083 = weight(_text_:aspects in 5165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10351083 = score(doc=5165,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.4943606 = fieldWeight in 5165, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Knowledge organization systems have been studied in several fields and for different and complementary aspects. Among the aspects that concentrate common interests, in this article we highlight those related to the terminological and conceptual relationships among the components of any knowledge organization system. This research aims to contribute to the critical analysis of knowledge organization systems, especially ontologies, thesauri, and classification systems, by the comprehension of its similarities and differences when dealing with concepts and their ways of relating to each other as well as to the conceptual design that is adopted.

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 1574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=1574,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 1574, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1574)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Using data culled during a metadata quality research project for the Social Network and Archival Context (SNAC) project, this article discusses common errors and problems in the use of standardized languages, specifically unambiguous names for persons and corporate bodies. Errors such as misspelling, qualifiers, format, and miss-encoding point to several areas where quality control measures can improve aggregation of data. Results from a large data set indicate that there are predictable problems that can be retrospectively corrected before aggregation. This research looked specifically at name formation and expression in metadata records, but the errors detected could be extended to other controlled vocabularies as well.

0.010456172 = product of:
  0.041824687 = sum of:
    0.041824687 = product of:
      0.083649375 = sum of:
        0.083649375 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083649375 = score(doc=1922,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.39950368 = fieldWeight in 1922, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1922)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article summarizes a presentation on RDA given at the Reaching Forward conference in Rosemont, Illinois, in May 2011. The presenters felt that, with all that has been written about RDA, a look at practical considerations would be welcome. After a brief look at the historical background and the reasons for developing a new code, the presentation focused on some notable differences between AACR2 and RDA in structure, terminology, the treatment of certain classes of access points, and various aspects of description as reflected in bibliographic records.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 1032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=1032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 1032, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1032)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Willkommen in der digitalen Bibliothekswelt! Neben Social Media und Gaming ist das sogenannte mobile Internet die nächste große Herausforderung für die Bibliothekswelt. Immer mehr Menschen nutzen mobile Endgeräte wie zum Beispiel Smartphones oder Tablet-PCs. Der Zugang zur digitalen In formations-welt ist endgültig nicht mehr an einen festen Ort gebunden.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=4629,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4629, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4629)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Researchers have different ways of deciding on the author order, and how they do it often depends on the culture of their field. Some fields are well known for using alphabetic author order, while others put a great emphasis on the meaning of the author order and place authors according to contribution. This article is the first to use mixed method to examine the extent of alphabetic author order and to examine why researchers adopt a certain author order norm in the fields of economics and political science. The article finds that alphabetic authorship has been and is the norm in economics, while some tendency towards it exists in political science. The differences in the intellectual and social organization of the fields seem to be a factor in the extent that these researchers will adopt a certain norm. Furthermore, the increasing number of authors per article and the publish-or-perish culture seems to put pressure on the alphabetic norm because it creates greater attention to the reputational advantages of being first-author.

0.009242038 = product of:
  0.036968153 = sum of:
    0.036968153 = product of:
      0.073936306 = sum of:
        0.073936306 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073936306 = score(doc=2952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.35311472 = fieldWeight in 2952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Toolkit designed by the RDA Steering Committee makes Resource Description and Access available on the web, together with other useful documents (workflows, mappings, etc.). Reading, learning and memorizing are interconnected, and a working tool should make these activities faster and easier to perform. Some issues arise while verifying the real easiness of use and learning of the tool. The practical and formal requirements for a cataloguing code include plain language, ease of memorisation, clarity of instructions, familiarity for users, predictability and reproducibility of solutions, and general usability. From a formal point of view, the RDA text does not appear to be conceived for an uninterrupted reading, but just for reading of few paragraphs for temporary catalographic needs. From a content point of view, having a syndetic view of the description of a resource is rather difficult: catalographic details are scattered and their re-organization is not easy. The visualisation and logical organisation in the Toolkit could be improved: the table of contents occupies a sizable portion of the screen and resizing or hiding it is not easy; the indentation leaves little space to the words; inhomogeneous font styles (italic and bold) and poor contrast between background and text colours make reading not easy; simultaneous visualization of two or more parts of the text is not allowed; and Toolkit's icons are less intuitive than expected. In the conclusion, some suggestions on how to improve the Toolkit's aspects and usability are provided.

0.009149151 = product of:
  0.036596604 = sum of:
    0.036596604 = product of:
      0.07319321 = sum of:
        0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07319321 = score(doc=4161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 4161, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

How a traditional cataloging unit should systematically go about attaining significant involvement in the bibliographic control of digital resources is one of the prime challenges currently facing cataloging managers. The author reviews why a cataloging unit should want to take on this new role, what the benefits are, the various types of involvement, how to prepare, the less obvious but important aspects of training, and the nature of organizational and workflow changes needed to free up time and resources for the new work. The author presents personal experiences from two different institutions as a case study.

0.009149151 = product of:
  0.036596604 = sum of:
    0.036596604 = product of:
      0.07319321 = sum of:
        0.07319321 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07319321 = score(doc=1989,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.3495657 = fieldWeight in 1989, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1989)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The discussion on the internationalization of German library standards has a long tradition, and revived around the millennium change with the recognition that the standards used so far were no longer suitable for the current needs. Therefore, the Committee for Library Standards, a consortium consisting mainly of German regional library networks and large academic libraries, with Austrian and Swiss representatives, agreed on the changeover. The article will describe all relevant aspects of the transition to Resource Description and Access (RDA) within the German-speaking library community.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=1904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 1904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries and museums developed rules for the description of their collections prior to formalizing the underlying conceptualization reflected in such rules. That formalizing process took place in the 1990s and resulted in two independent conceptual models: FRBR for bibliographic information (published in 1998), and CIDOC CRM for museum information (developed from 1996 on, and issued as ISO standard 21127 in 2006). An international working group was formed in 2003 with the purpose of harmonizing these two models. The resulting model, FRBROO, was published in 2009. It is an extension to CIDOC CRM, using the formalism in which the former is written. It adds to FRBR the dynamic aspects of CIDOC CRM, and a number of refinements (e.g. in the definitions of Work and Manifestation). Some modifications were made in CIDOC CRM as well. FRBROO was developed with Semantic Web technologies in mind, and lends itself well to the Linked Data environment; but will it be used in that context?

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=2624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The article presents the work of Elaine Svenonius The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization, translated in Italian and published by Le Lettere of Florence, within the series Pinakes, with the title Il fondamento intellettuale dell'organizzazione dell'informazione. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization defines the theoretical aspects of library science, its philosophical basics and principles, the purposes that must be kept in mind, abstracting from the technology used in a library. The book deals with information organization and bibliographic universe, in particular using the bibliographic entities defined in FRBR, at first. Then, it analyzes all the specific languages by which works and subjects are treated. This work, already acknowledged as a classic, organizes, synthesizes and make easily understood the whole complex of knowledge, practices and procedures developed in the last 150 years.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=2625,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2625, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The article aims to provide an update on the 2009 Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) and on the status of work on the Statement by the IFLA Cataloguing Section. The article begins with a summary of the drafting process of the ICP by the IME ICC, International Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, focusing in particular on the first meeting (IME ICC1) and on the earlier drafts of the 2009 Statement. It then analyzes both the major innovations and the unsatisfactory aspects of the ICP. Finally, it explains and comments on the recent documents by the IFLA Cataloguing Section relating to the ICP, which express their intention to revise the Statement and to verify the convenience of drawing up an international cataloguing code. The latter intention is considered in detail and criticized by the author in the light of the recent publication of the RDA, Resource Description and Access. The article is complemented by an updated bibliography on the ICP.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=2951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2951, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article attempts to clarify the nature of the relationship between the RDA and ISBD standards in order to be able to understand their differences and vinculations, as well as to remove some misinterpretations about this relationship. With this objective, some aspects that can affect their differences, such as types of standards, points of view, scope, origin, policies of the creation and development group or organization in charge that logically justify these differences, are analyzed. These have not presented any obstacles for a correct relationship with the help of the Linked Data technology. In this article, account is also given of the work done of mappings and alignments between the standards in order to contribute properly to the Semantic Web. This knowledge is the one fundamental required for current catalogers to use standards judiciously, knowledgeably and responsibly.

0.007842129 = product of:
  0.031368516 = sum of:
    0.031368516 = product of:
      0.06273703 = sum of:
        0.06273703 = weight(_text_:aspects in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06273703 = score(doc=2959,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.29962775 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

RIMMF software is grew out of the need to visualize and realize records according to the RDA guidelines. The article describes the software structure and features in the creation of a r­ball, that is a small database populated by recordings of bibliographic and authority resources enriched by relationships between and among entities involved. At first it's introduced the need that led to RIMMF outcome, then starts the software functional analysis. With a description of the main steps of the r-ball building, emphasizing the issues raised. The results highlights some critical aspects, but above all the wide scope of possible developments that open the Cultural Heritage Institutions horizon to the web prospective. Conclusions display the RDF-linked­data development of the RIMMF incoming future.

0.0073936307 = product of:
  0.029574523 = sum of:
    0.029574523 = product of:
      0.059149045 = sum of:
        0.059149045 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059149045 = score(doc=1881,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.28249177 = fieldWeight in 1881, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1881)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Linked data has dominated the recent discourse in cataloging and metadata. The daily work of the cataloger, however, remains mostly unchanged. This tension is investigated, with a view to reconciling cataloging practice with a linked data future. Aspects of linked data are outlined and a shift in focus in cataloging practice is recommended. Authorities, controlled access points, vocabularies, differentiated values, and local data should be emphasized, and focus should shift from free text fields, keystrokes, punctuation, and aspects of local practice. Through these recommendations, it is argued that catalogers can help prepare the way for the emerging information environment. There exists a tension between the data produced in library catalogues presently and the data requirements of an uncertain future. While Linked Data dominates the theoretical and experimental discussion of the next generation of information discovery, the daily work of the cataloguer remains mostly unchanged. The practice of following standards is essential for cataloguing data, and Resource Description and Access (RDA) attempts to bridge the gap between legacy data and a future where Linked Data is increasingly important. But in this transitional environment, where cataloguers continue to create MARC records in traditional closed library databases, can cataloguers do something more to prepare for the future to make their data smarter and richer? While Linked Data deals with large aggregations of data, how can the daily work of the cataloguer at present be leveraged to positively impact future aggregate data tasks and requirements? In short, what can the present-day cataloguer do to "prepare the way" for future data needs? To investigate, this paper will discuss several key questions. What does the future, particularly Linked Data, require of cataloguing data? What can cataloguers do to "prepare the way" for this future as they produce granular data on a daily basis? To what extent do current standards, including RDA, help to meet future requirements? Is following standards all that is required, or are there forward-facing data principles and practices that should otherwise inform practice? And, finally, to what extent is creating good data a neutral process independent of specific current or future technologies? The authors will examine these issues in reference to existing data quality models proposed within and outside of the cataloguing literature. Practical suggestions for current cataloguing production practice will be made based on the future needs outlined.