Search (1874 results, page 1 of 94)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Danskin, A.: Linked and open data : RDA and bibliographic control (2012) 0.14 
    0.14337601 = product of:
  0.19116801 = sum of:
    0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10090631 = score(doc=304,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
    0.07130171 = weight(_text_:26 in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07130171 = score(doc=304,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.40548897 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 304, 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=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    RDA: Resource Description and Access is a new cataloguing standard which will replace the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, which has been widely used in libraries since 1981. RDA, like AACR2, is a content standard providing guidance and instruction on how to identify and record attributes or properties of resources which are significant for discovery. However, RDA is also an implementation of the FRBR and FRAD models. The RDA element set and vocabularies are being published on the Open Metadata Registry as linked open data. RDA provides a rich vocabulary for the description of resources and for expressing relationships between them. This paper describes what RDA offers and considers the challenges and potential of linked open data in the broader framework of bibliographic control.
    Date
    26. 6.2012 20:18:37
    26. 6.2012 20:26:43
  2. O'Dell, A.J.: Maker metadata : problems and possibilities (2015) 0.13 
    0.1271876 = product of:
  0.16958345 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=2618,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 2618, 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=2618)
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=2618,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 2618, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2618)
    0.038312923 = product of:
      0.07662585 = sum of:
        0.07662585 = weight(_text_:access in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07662585 = score(doc=2618,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.45403582 = fieldWeight in 2618, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Information about makers is critical to bibliographic research, and special collections cataloging norms provide maker metadata. Still, access to maker metadata is hampered in online library catalogs. This article investigates the betterment of maker metadata in (or alongside) library catalogs using existing content guidelines, encoding schemas, and data models. Discussion finds that libraries have appropriate tools for improving access to maker metadata. This article thus encourages the profession to coordinate access to maker metadata. Cooperative maker description and the merger and/or linking of datasets generated by the research community are suggested areas for future investigation.
    Date
    19. 1.2016 15:45:26
  3. Alonso Lifante, M.P.; Molero Madrid, F.J.: Enhancing OPAC records : evaluating and fitting within cataloguing standards a new proposal of description parameters for historical astronomical resources (2015) 0.13 
    0.12658575 = product of:
  0.2531715 = sum of:
    0.17477486 = weight(_text_:description in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17477486 = score(doc=2611,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.75496364 = fieldWeight in 2611, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2611)
    0.07839665 = sum of:
      0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037919957 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
      0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040476695 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Enhancing content description of specialized resources, particularly astronomical resources, is a matter that is still unresolved in library and information science. In this paper, the authors outline deficiencies in some fields and elements of cataloging standards for description of historical astronomical resources, mainly star atlases and catalogs. Furthermore, they review their recent proposal of astronomical parameters for a better description and propose an approach for accommodating these parameters in the current criteria of MARC 21, the International Standard Bibliographic Description, and Resource Description and Access. Fourteen new parameters are considered, and recommendations are provided to standards developers for the addition of elements to accommodate attributes of celestial cartographic resources. This would improve bibliographic records for such resources in astronomical libraries' OPACs, which will have a beneficial effect on information retrieval.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. Assumpção, F.S.; Santarem Segundo, J.E.; Ventura Amorim da Costa Santos, P.L.: RDA element sets and RDA value vocabularies : vocabularies for resource description in the Semantic Web (2015) 0.12 
    0.12077427 = product of:
  0.16103236 = sum of:
    0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10090631 = score(doc=2389,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 2389, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2389)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 2389) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=2389,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 2389, 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=2389)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Considering the need for metadata standards suitable for the Semantic Web, this paper describes the RDA Element Sets and the RDA Value Vocabularies that were created from attributes and relationships defined in Resource Description and Access (RDA). First, we present the vocabularies included in RDA Element Sets: the vocabularies of classes, of properties and of properties unconstrained by FRBR entities; and then we present the RDA Value Vocabularies, which are under development. As a conclusion, we highlight that these vocabularies can be used to meet the needs of different contexts due to the unconstrained properties and to the independence of the vocabularies of properties from the vocabularies of values and vice versa.
    Date
    19.12.2014 19:26:51
  5. Taniguchi, S.: User tasks in the RDA-based model (2013) 0.12 
    0.11504287 = product of:
  0.1533905 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 1956, 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=1956)
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1956, 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=1956)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    I examine user tasks and their related issues in the model that reflects Resource Description and Access (RDA) directly, which complements prior studies that dealt mainly with entities and their attributes and relationships. First, the definitions of user tasks in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and RDA, respectively, are reviewed. Then, mappings between attributes and relationships of the RDA entities to the user tasks are proposed for the RDA-based model; the mapping covering Group 1 and 2 entities, and that for the other entities. The resultant RDA mappings and those shown in FRBR and FRAD are compared, which reveals the superiority of the former mappings.
    Date
    29. 5.2015 19:14:26
  6. Gorman, M.: ¬The origins and making of the ISBD : a personal history, 1966-1978 (2014) 0.12 
    0.11504287 = product of:
  0.1533905 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 1995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=1995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 1995, 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=1995)
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 1995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=1995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 1995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1995)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1995, 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=1995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    What follows are my memories of the events, starting almost five decades ago, that led to the International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD)-still the most successful and widely used international cataloging standard in history. Many of the documents of the time were little more than ephemera (working papers and the like) and some are not now available to me. I have checked my recollections in all the documents to which I have access and apologize in advance for any errors of time or place. I also apologize for the, alas, unavoidable, given the nature of the essay, many repetitions of the words "I" and "me."
    Date
    30. 5.2015 17:59:26
  7. Mlodzka-Stybel, A.: Towards continuous improvement of users' access to a library catalogue (2014) 0.11 
    0.11375579 = product of:
  0.22751158 = sum of:
    0.11772404 = weight(_text_:description in 1466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11772404 = score(doc=1466,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5085249 = fieldWeight in 1466, 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=1466)
    0.10978755 = sum of:
      0.06256474 = weight(_text_:access in 1466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06256474 = score(doc=1466,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 1466, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1466)
      0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 1466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04722281 = score(doc=1466,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1466, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1466)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The paper discusses the issue of increasing users' access to library records by their publication in Google. Data from the records, converted into html format, have been indexed by Google. The process covered basic formal description fields of the records, description of the content, supported with a thesaurus, as well as an abstract, if present in the record. In addition to monitoring the end users' statistics, the pilot testing covered visibility of library records in Google search results.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  8. Taniguchi, S.: Modeling resource description tasks in RDA (2015) 0.11 
    0.113011986 = product of:
  0.22602397 = sum of:
    0.203904 = weight(_text_:description in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.203904 = score(doc=2013,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.8807909 = fieldWeight in 2013, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2013)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 2013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=2013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 2013, 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=2013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study aims to model the resource description tasks that are performed by catalogers. First, a model of authority data creator tasks is derived from Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), since FRAD partially includes such task modeling. Second, modeling of resource description tasks in line with Resource Description and Access (RDA) is conducted to cover the whole resource description tasks including those on descriptive data as well as those on authority data, and also to reflect RDA instructions as much as possible. Third, the modeling of resource description tasks is compared with that of user tasks in order to understand their differences.
  9. Maxwell, R.L.: Handbook for RDA : Maxwell's handbook for RDA ; explaining and illustrating RDA: resource description and access using MARC 21 (2013) 0.11 
    0.10858533 = product of:
  0.21717066 = sum of:
    0.17477486 = weight(_text_:description in 2085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17477486 = score(doc=2085,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.75496364 = fieldWeight in 2085, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2085)
    0.042395804 = product of:
      0.08479161 = sum of:
        0.08479161 = weight(_text_:access in 2085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08479161 = score(doc=2085,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.5024209 = fieldWeight in 2085, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2085)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    IntroductionDescribing manifestations and items -- Describing persons -- Describing families -- Describing corporate bodies -- Describing geographic entities -- Describing works -- Describing expressions -- Recording relationships -- Appendix A. Printed books and sheets -- Appendix B. Cartographic resources -- Appendix C. Unpublished manuscripts and manuscript collections -- Appendix D. Notated music -- Appendix E. Audio recordings -- Appendix F. Moving image resources -- Appendix G. Two-dimensional graphic resources -- Appendix H. Three-dimensional resources and objects -- Appendix I. Digital resources -- Appendix J. Microform resources -- Appendix K. Bibliographic records serials and integrating resources -- Appendix L. Analytical description.
    LCSH
    Resource description and access
    RSWK
    Resource description and access / MARC 21 / Einführung
    Subject
    Resource description and access / MARC 21 / Einführung
    Resource description and access
  10. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.11 
    0.10555364 = product of:
  0.14073819 = sum of:
    0.08408859 = weight(_text_:description in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08408859 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.36323205 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.02234455 = product of:
      0.0446891 = sum of:
        0.0446891 = weight(_text_:access in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0446891 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.
    Date
    23. 3.2013 12:26:02
  11. Bianchini, C.; Willer, M.: ISBD resource and Its description in the context of the Semantic Web (2014) 0.10 
    0.104129 = product of:
  0.208258 = sum of:
    0.18613803 = weight(_text_:description in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.18613803 = score(doc=1998,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.8040484 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1998,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1998, 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=1998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article explores the question "What is an International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) resource in the context of the Semantic Web, and what is the relationship of its description to the linked data?" This question is discussed against the background of the dichotomy between the description and access using the Semantic Web differentiation of the three logical layers: real-world objects, web of data, and special purpose (bibliographic) data. The representation of bibliographic data as linked data is discussed, distinguishing the description of a resource from the iconic/objective and the informational/subjective viewpoints. In the conclusion, the authors give views on possible directions of future development of the ISBD.
  12. Hartmann, S.; Haffner, A.: Linked-RDA-Data in der Praxis (2010) 0.10 
    0.09983213 = product of:
  0.19966426 = sum of:
    0.09513538 = weight(_text_:description in 1679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09513538 = score(doc=1679,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.41095015 = fieldWeight in 1679, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1679)
    0.104528874 = sum of:
      0.050559945 = weight(_text_:access in 1679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.050559945 = score(doc=1679,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 1679, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1679)
      0.05396893 = weight(_text_:22 in 1679) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05396893 = score(doc=1679,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1679, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1679)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Durch den neuen Erschließungsstandard "Resource Description and Access" (RDA) lassen sich bibliografische Daten sowie Normdaten Semantic-Web-konform repräsentieren. Der Vortrag soll aufzeigen, welche Auswirkungen RDA auf die Katalogisierung in Bibliotheken und den Zugang zu den erschlossenen Ressourcen im Semantic Web hat. Anhand erster Erfahrungen aus praktischen Umsetzungen wird erläutert, wie bibliografische Daten durch RDA und Linked-Data-Technologien besser zugänglich gemacht und vor allem nachgenutzt werden können.
    Date
    13. 2.2011 20:22:23
  13. Wacker, M.; Han, M.-J.; Dartt, J.: Testing Resource Description and Access (RDA) with non-MARC standards (2011) 0.10 
    0.09888464 = product of:
  0.19776928 = sum of:
    0.16648692 = weight(_text_:description in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16648692 = score(doc=1900,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.71916276 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
    0.03128237 = product of:
      0.06256474 = sum of:
        0.06256474 = weight(_text_:access in 1900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06256474 = score(doc=1900,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 1900, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Columbia University, the University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign participated in the 2010 U.S. National Libraries Test of Resource Description & Access (RDA). As devised, the new cataloging code is format and schema independent. Because creating descriptive metadata records in non-MARC metadata standards is now a part of regular cataloging practice, the three institutions chose to test RDA with the standards, Metadata Object Description Standard (MODS), Encoded Archival Description (EAD), and Dublin Core. This article describes the set-ups and workflows of each institution, the issues encountered with record creation, and the conclusions drawn from the test.
  14. Jones, E.: RDA and serials cataloguing (2013) 0.10 
    0.095196694 = product of:
  0.19039339 = sum of:
    0.15042225 = weight(_text_:description in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15042225 = score(doc=2088,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.64976925 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
    0.039971147 = product of:
      0.07994229 = sum of:
        0.07994229 = weight(_text_:access in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07994229 = score(doc=2088,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.47368696 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this manual, expert cataloguer Ed Jones shows you how to catalogue serials using the new cataloguing standard, RDA: Resource Description and Access. Serials and continuing resources present a variety of unique challenges in bibliographic management, from special issues and unnumbered supplements to recording the changes that a long-running periodical can experience over time. Easing cataloguers through the RDA: Resource Description and Access transition by showing the continuity with past practice, serials cataloguing expert Jones frames the practice within the structure of the FRBR and FRAD conceptual models on which RDA is based. With serials' special considerations in mind, this essential guide explains the familiarities and differences between AACR2 and RDA and demonstrates how serials cataloguers' work fits in the cooperative context of OCLC, CONSER and NACO. Jones looks in detail at the process of cataloguing serials and ongoing integrating resources using RDA, from attributes and relationships between works to identifying related entities. Finally, looking at the possibilities offered by Linked Data, he presents examples of how RDA records can ultimately engage with the Semantic Web.
    LCSH
    Resource description & access
    RSWK
    Resource description and access / Zeitschrift / Katalogisierung
    Schriftenreihe / Katalogisierung / Resource description and access
    Resource description and access / Fortlaufendes Sammelwerk / Katalogisierung
    Subject
    Resource description and access / Zeitschrift / Katalogisierung
    Schriftenreihe / Katalogisierung / Resource description and access
    Resource description and access / Fortlaufendes Sammelwerk / Katalogisierung
    Resource description & access
  15. Taniguchi, S.: Understanding RDA as a DC application profile (2013) 0.10 
    0.095029645 = product of:
  0.19005929 = sum of:
    0.16477932 = weight(_text_:description in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16477932 = score(doc=1906,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.71178657 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
    0.025279973 = product of:
      0.050559945 = sum of:
        0.050559945 = weight(_text_:access in 1906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050559945 = score(doc=1906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 1906, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The applicability of Dublin Core Application Profiles (DCAP) and the Singapore Framework for DCAPs to Resource Description and Access (RDA) were assessed. First, a draft RDA application profile is outlined, which reveals their applicability to RDA as a whole. Then, the current situation and issues involved in defining and specifying the RDA vocabularies, description structures, and syntaxes, all of which form the RDA application profile, are reviewed, for four levels of the RDA description structure; that is, the levels of aggregates and components of statements.
  16. Taniguchi, S.: Aggregate and component entities in RDA : model and description (2013) 0.09 
    0.094303444 = product of:
  0.18860689 = sum of:
    0.16648692 = weight(_text_:description in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16648692 = score(doc=1951,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.71916276 = fieldWeight in 1951, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1951)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1951,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1951, 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=1951)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Based on the distinction between model and description in Resource Description and Access (RDA), the modeling and description of aggregate and component entities in RDA was examined. Guidelines and instructions related to such modeling were extracted from RDA and reconciled. After introducing additional assumptions, five possible model patterns of aggregate and component entities were developed. Then, the mapping between these model patterns and the manifestation types was clarified, revealing which model patterns are applicable to a given type of manifestation. Finally, RDA instructions on descriptions for aggregates/components were examined, and it was clarified that they do not have any conflict with the modeling.
  17. Oliver, C.: Introducing RDA : a guide to the basics (2010) 0.09 
    0.0921738 = product of:
  0.1843476 = sum of:
    0.14564571 = weight(_text_:description in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14564571 = score(doc=1540,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.6291363 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
    0.038701892 = product of:
      0.077403784 = sum of:
        0.077403784 = weight(_text_:access in 1540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077403784 = score(doc=1540,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.4586454 = fieldWeight in 1540, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1540)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Practical advice for catalogers and library administrators on how to make the transition from the Anglo-American cataloging rules (AACR) to Resource description and access (RDA). Resource Description and Access (RDA) is the new cataloguing standard that will replace the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR). The 2010 release of RDA is not the release of a revised standard; it represents a shift in the understanding of the cataloguing process. Author Chris Oliver, Cataloguing and Authorities Coordinator at the McGill University Library and chair of the Canadian Committee on Cataloging, offers practical advice on how to make the transition. This indispensable Special Report helps catalogers by: concisely explaining RDA and its expected benefits for users and cataloguers, presented through topics and questions; placing RDA in context by examining its connection with its predecessor, AACR2, as well as looking at RDA's relationship to internationally accepted principles, standards and models; and detailing how RDA positions us to take advantage of newly emerging database structures, how RDA data enables improved resource discovery, and how we can get metadata out of library silos and make it more accessible. No cataloger or library administrator will want to be without this straightforward guide to the changes ahead.
    LCSH
    Resource Description and Access
    RSWK
    Resource Description and Access / Einführung
    Subject
    Resource Description and Access / Einführung
    Resource Description and Access
  18. Hart, A.: RDA made simple : a practical guide to the new cataloging rules (2014) 0.09 
    0.09031151 = product of:
  0.18062302 = sum of:
    0.14270307 = weight(_text_:description in 2807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14270307 = score(doc=2807,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.6164252 = fieldWeight in 2807, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2807)
    0.037919957 = product of:
      0.075839914 = sum of:
        0.075839914 = weight(_text_:access in 2807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075839914 = score(doc=2807,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 2807, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2807)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    LCSH
    Resource description & access
    RSWK
    Resource description and access / Einführung
    Subject
    Resource description and access / Einführung
    Resource description & access
  19. Taylor, A.G.: Implementing AACR and AACR2 : a personal perspective and lessons learned (2012) 0.09 
    0.08735311 = product of:
  0.17470622 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
    0.09146276 = sum of:
      0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044239953 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
      0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04722281 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2546, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2546)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    As we move toward implementing RDA: Resource Description and Access, I have been pondering how we might manage the transition to new cataloging rules effectively. I was a practicing cataloger when Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., was implemented and remember it as a traumatic process. The published literature that I found focused on the impact of the then-new rules on specific formats and genres, but no one seems to have addressed the process of implementation and what type of training worked well (or did not). After a bit of sleuthing, I found a pertinent presentation by Arlene G. Taylor, which she graciously agreed to repurpose as this guest editorial.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  20. Henttonen, P.: Bibliographic subject headings as access points to archival sources (2014) 0.09 
    0.08735311 = product of:
  0.17470622 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=1460,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 1460, 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=1460)
    0.09146276 = sum of:
      0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044239953 = score(doc=1460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1460, 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=1460)
      0.04722281 = weight(_text_:22 in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04722281 = score(doc=1460,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1460, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1460)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The paper examines whether subject headings in a bibliographic description could be used to direct users to relevant archival sources: a publication about a subject is likely to cite archival sources that are related to the subject. In the light of the data collected for the paper this approach might work in case of some keywords. However, there are also problems, like finding the optimal level the user should be directed to in the archival hierarchy, and the lack of information in archival persistent identifiers (PIDs).
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Authors

Languages

  • e 1432
  • d 423
  • i 3
  • a 1
  • f 1
  • hu 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 1610
  • el 187
  • m 159
  • s 53
  • x 24
  • r 14
  • n 6
  • b 5
  • i 3
  • ag 2
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications