Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08315094 = product of:
  0.16630188 = sum of:
    0.1441819 = weight(_text_:description in 1999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1441819 = score(doc=1999,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.6228132 = fieldWeight in 1999, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1999)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1999) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1999,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1999, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1999)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The article is an updated and expanded version of a paper presented to International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions in 2013. It describes recent work involving the representation of International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) and UNIMARC (UNIversal MARC) in Resource Description Framework (RDF), the basis of the Semantic Web and linked data. The UNIMARC Bibliographic format is used to illustrate issues arising from the development of a bibliographic element set and its semantic alignment with ISBD. The article discusses the use of such alignments in the automated processing of linked data for interoperability, using examples from ISBD, UNIMARC, and Resource Description and Access.

0.06992201 = product of:
  0.13984402 = sum of:
    0.11772404 = weight(_text_:description in 1997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11772404 = score(doc=1997,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5085249 = fieldWeight in 1997, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1997)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1997, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1997)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The article discusses the use of International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) in linked data application profiles and mappings to other bibliographic element sets including UNIMARC (UNIversal MARC), MARC 21, and Resource Description and Access (RDA), establishing ISBD's support for hierarchical relationships between fine-grained properties for resource attributes and coarser-grained aggregations for end-user displays of data triples, and interoperability of metadata derived from different schema. Separation of ISBD punctuation from element properties allows its use in text-based displays while accommodating innovative ways of presenting record-level sets of linked data. The article concludes with a discussion of the issues facing ISBD in maintaining a role in the future library linked data environment.

0.064314656 = product of:
  0.12862931 = sum of:
    0.09702934 = weight(_text_:26 in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09702934 = score(doc=4536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5518006 = fieldWeight in 4536, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4536)
    0.031599965 = product of:
      0.06319993 = sum of:
        0.06319993 = weight(_text_:access in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06319993 = score(doc=4536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 4536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

1. 7.1996 21:26:02
26. 3.2000 16:15:25

0.05939353 = product of:
  0.11878706 = sum of:
    0.10298707 = weight(_text_:description in 651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10298707 = score(doc=651,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.4448666 = fieldWeight in 651, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=651)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper describes recent work on registering Resource Description Framework (RDF) versions of the entities and relationships from the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) models developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). FRBR was developed several years before FRAD, and is under-developed in areas which FRAD was expected to cover; FRAD therefore makes significance reference to FRBR. Similarly, FRAD leaves a full treatment of subject authority data to the ongoing development of Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) which was finalised during 2010. Although the FRBR Review Group is charged with consolidating all three models in due course, the RDF versions of FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD are being created in separate namespaces, with a separate Web Ontology Language (OWL) ontology to connect the three models. The paper discusses interoperability issues arising from this work. Such issues include class definitions and sub-classes, reciprocal properties, and disjoint classes and properties. The paper discusses similar work on the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD), also maintained by IFLA, and related issues arising from the RDF representation of the metadata element set of RDA: resource description and access, which is based on the FRBR and FRAD models. The work is ongoing, and the paper updates the original conference presentation to the end of October 2010.

0.052681718 = product of:
  0.105363436 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article presents a case study of RIMMF, a software tool developed to improve the orientation and training of catalogers who use Resource Description and Access (RDA) to maintain bibliographic data. The cataloging guidance and instructions of RDA are based on the Functional Requirements conceptual models that are now consolidated in the IFLA Library Reference Model, but many catalogers are applying RDA in systems that have evolved from inventory and text-processing applications developed from older metadata paradigms. The article describes how RIMMF interacts with the RDA Toolkit and RDA Registry to offer cataloger-friendly multilingual data input and editing interfaces.

0.047514822 = product of:
  0.095029645 = sum of:
    0.08238966 = weight(_text_:description in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08238966 = score(doc=3965,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35589328 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
    0.012639986 = product of:
      0.025279973 = sum of:
        0.025279973 = weight(_text_:access in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025279973 = score(doc=3965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper describes recent initiatives to make standard library metadata models and structures available to the Semantic Web, including IFLA standards such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) along with the infrastructure that supports them. The FRBR Review Group is currently developing representations of FRAD and the entityrelationship model of FRBR in resource description framework (RDF) applications, using a combination of RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL), cross-relating both models where appropriate. The ISBD/XML Task Group is investigating the representation of ISBD in RDF. The IFLA Namespaces project is developing an administrative and technical infrastructure to support such initiatives and encourage uptake of standards by other agencies. The paper describes similar initiatives with related external standards such as RDA - resource description and access, REICAT (the new Italian cataloguing rules) and CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model (CRM). The DCMI RDA Task Group is working with the Joint Steering Committee for RDA to develop Semantic Web representations of RDA structural elements, which are aligned with FRBR and FRAD, and controlled metadata content vocabularies. REICAT is also based on FRBR, and an object-oriented version of FRBR has been integrated with CRM, which itself has an RDF representation. CRM was initially based on the metadata needs of the museum community, and is now seeking extension to the archives community with the eventual aim of developing a model common to the main cultural information domains of archives, libraries and museums. The Vocabulary Mapping Framework (VMF) project has developed a Semantic Web tool to automatically generate mappings between metadata models from the information communities, including publishers. The tool is based on several standards, including CRM, FRAD, FRBR, MARC21 and RDA.

0.045155756 = product of:
  0.09031151 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 2956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=2956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 2956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2956)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 2956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=2956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 2956, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses the progress that has been made to internationalize the management and development of RDA: Resource Description and Access. RDA has been designed for an international environment, and is used in a number of countries worldwide. The paper describes the impact that international adoption of RDA had on the arrangements for its governance, including a new structure for ensuring international participation. It discusses the progress that has been made to improve wider input into the processes for its development, including working groups, liaisons with related standards organizations, and cataloguing hackathons. The paper is based on desk research of published resources, including websites, blogs, and conference presentations. The paper concludes that the intention to internationalize RDA is serious and has made a good use of its opportunities, although threats to its success remain.

0.020810865 = product of:
  0.08324346 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 1928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=1928,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 1928, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1928)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Each of the FR family of models has been represented in Resource Description Framework (RDF), the basis of the Semantic Web. This has involved analysis of the entity-relationship diagrams and text of the models to identify and create the RDF classes, properties, definitions and scope notes required. The work has shown that it is possible to seamlessly connect the models within a semantic framework, specifically in the treatment of names, identifiers, and subjects, and link the RDF elements to those in related namespaces.

0.020810865 = product of:
  0.08324346 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=2525,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

RDA has always been a continually evolving standard that aims to reflect the requirements of the cataloguing community. Simon Edwards will highlight the steps towards a further internationalisation and exploration of wider cultural heritage description communities. Gordon Dunsire will point out the potential implementations of RDA data in various database structures and describes the possibilities for further work with RDA and linked data scenarios in international communities. The third part of the article reflects the experience of the British Library in applying RDA in the last years. Alan Danskin gives an overview of the transition period from the project organization until training.

0.011891923 = product of:
  0.04756769 = sum of:
    0.04756769 = weight(_text_:description in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04756769 = score(doc=4796,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.20547508 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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].

0.007899991 = product of:
  0.031599965 = sum of:
    0.031599965 = product of:
      0.06319993 = sum of:
        0.06319993 = weight(_text_:access in 6570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06319993 = score(doc=6570,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.37448242 = fieldWeight in 6570, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6570)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the properties of electronic serials and other resources published on the WWW with respect to providing and maintaining access to them by library users. Discusses the relevance of the CATRIONA project as a methodology for integrated search and retrieval of all bibliographic materials, whether printed or electronic

0.005529994 = product of:
  0.022119977 = sum of:
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1805,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1805, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1805)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al

0.0047399946 = product of:
  0.018959979 = sum of:
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Presents an overview of cataloguing and indexing activities taking place in Scotland. Outlines the background to the current cataloguing scene by describing the work of SCOLCAP (Scottish Libraries Cooperative Automation Project) during the 970s and 1980s, and the activities of the Library's Association's Cataloguing and Indexing Group in Scotland, founded in 983. Scotland now dhas a well established infrastructure of professional information organizations including the Scottish Confederation of University and Research Libraries and the Scottish Library and Information Council. Describes 4 current cataloguing and indexing projects: SALSER (Scottish Academic Serials); CATRIONA (Cataloguing and Retrieval of Information Over Network Access); SLAINTE (Scottish Libraries across the Internet); and BOSLIT (Bibliography of Scottish Literature in Translation). Proposes 3 important future developments: a distributed catalogue of research and educational materials held in the libraries of Scotland; an effective mechanism for the storage and preservation of electronic information objects of national significance; and a standard, integrated catalogue or index of all local history resources

0.0042163227 = product of:
  0.01686529 = sum of:
    0.01686529 = product of:
      0.03373058 = sum of:
        0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 4066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373058 = score(doc=4066,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4066, 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=4066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 1.2011 19:22:48

0.0031599966 = product of:
  0.012639986 = sum of:
    0.012639986 = product of:
      0.025279973 = sum of:
        0.025279973 = weight(_text_:access in 4336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025279973 = score(doc=4336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 4336, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The publication of library legacy includes publication of structuring vocabularies such as thesauri, classifications, subject headings. Different sources use different vocabularies, different in structure, width, depth and scope, and languages. Federated access to distributed data collections is currently possible if they rely on the same vocabularies. Mapping techniques and standards supporting them (such as SKOS mapping properties, OWL sameAs and equivalentClass) are still largely experimental, even in the linked data land. Libraries use a variety of controlled subject vocabulary and classification schemes to index items in their collections. Although most collections will employ only a single scheme, different schemes may be chosen to index different collections within a library or in separate libraries; schemes are chosen on the basis of language, subject focus (general or specific), granularity (specificity), user expectation, and availability and support (cost, currency, completeness, tools). For example, a typical academic library will operate separate metadata systems for the library's main collections, special collections (e.g. manuscripts, archives, audiovisual), digital collections, and one or more institutional repositories for teaching and research output; each of these systems may employ a different subject vocabulary, with little or no interoperability between terms and concepts. Users expect to have a single point-of-search in resource discovery services focussed on their local institutional collections. Librarians have to use complex and expensive resource discovery platforms to meet user expectations. Library communities continue to develop resource discovery services for consortia with a geographical, subject, sector (public, academic, school, special libraries), and/or domain (libraries, archives, museums) focus. Services are based on distributed searching (e.g. via Z39.50) or metadata aggregations (e.g. OCLC's WorldCat and OAISter). As a result, the number of different subject schemes encountered in such services is increasing. Trans-national consortia (e.g. Europeana) add to the complexity of the environment by including subject vocabularies in multiple languages. Users expect single point-of-search in consortial resource discovery service involving multiple organisations and large-scale metadata aggregations. Users also expect to be able to search for subjects using their own language and terms in an unambiguous, contextualised manner.