Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019049017 = product of:
  0.08572058 = sum of:
    0.04487142 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04487142 = score(doc=5120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
    0.040849157 = weight(_text_:data in 5120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040849157 = score(doc=5120,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 5120, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5120)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The reflection provoked by RDA produced the awareness that the flat format of MARC 21 records is inadequate in expressing the relationships between bibliographic entities that the FRBR model and RDA standard consider fundamental. RIMMF and BIBFRAME indicate to software developers a way to think that is consistent with RDA. In Italy, @Cult, a software house and bibliographic agency working for Casalini Libri, has taken on the charge of following and facilitating the transition: OliSuite/WeCat provides an implementation of RDA that integrates vocabularies and ontologies already present in the Web by structuring the information in linked open data.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.3, S.179-199

0.0074018645 = product of:
  0.06661678 = sum of:
    0.06661678 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06661678 = score(doc=2006,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Since the end of the last century, catalogs have been changing more and more quickly. This change is following a recognizable course, beginning with the publication of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, passing through the reorganization of international cataloging principles, the revision of international standards of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (International Standard for Bibliographic Description), and the foundation of new cataloging codes, such as Resource Description and Access. While principles, models, and rules are well established, bibliographic formats seem to be a bottleneck and users seem far from libraries. This article aims to present an overview of current changes, potential convergences, developments, and weak points from Ranganathan's point of view.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.3/4, S.341-351

0.005697958 = product of:
  0.051281624 = sum of:
    0.051281624 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051281624 = score(doc=2944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 2944, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2944)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This issue of Jlis.it is focused on RDA, Resource Description and Access. In light of increasing international acceptance of this new cataloging content standard, the editors of Jlis.it wish to capture the background of how RDA came to be and the implications of its implementation at this time. This special issue offers a wide overview on the new guidelines from their making to their spreading around the world.

0.00550185 = product of:
  0.04951665 = sum of:
    0.04951665 = weight(_text_:data in 2948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04951665 = score(doc=2948,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.4192326 = fieldWeight in 2948, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2948)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

RDA Resource Description and Access are guidelines for description and access to resources designed for digital environment and released, in its first version, in 2010. RDA is based on FRBR and its derived models, that focus on users' needs and on resources of any kind of content, medium and carrier. The paper discusses relevance of main features of RDA for the future role of libraries in the context of semantic web and metadata creation and exchange. The paper aims to highlight many consequences deriving from RDA being a content standard, and in particular the change from record management to data management, differences among the two functions realized by RDA (to identify and to relate entities) and functions realized by other standard such as MARC21 (to archive data) and ISB (to visualize data) and show how, as all these functions are necessary for the catalog, RDA needs to be integrated by other rules and standard and that these tools allow the fulfilment of the variation principle defined by S.R. Ranganathan.

0.0049857134 = product of:
  0.04487142 = sum of:
    0.04487142 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04487142 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 47(2009) no.2, S.xx-xx

0.003561224 = product of:
  0.032051016 = sum of:
    0.032051016 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032051016 = score(doc=5616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 5616, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5616)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 24(1997) nos.3/4, S.xx-58

0.003561224 = product of:
  0.032051016 = sum of:
    0.032051016 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032051016 = score(doc=258,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 258, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=258)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 44(2007) nos.1/2, S.131-150