Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.02858579 = product of:
  0.07146447 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2610, 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=2610)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Aggregates have been a frequent topic of discussion between library science researchers. This study seeks to better understand aggregates through the analysis of a sample of bibliographic records and review of the cataloging treatment of aggregates. The study focuses on determining how common aggregates are in library collections, what types of aggregates exist, how aggregates are described in bibliographic records, and the criteria for identifying aggregates from the information in bibliographic records. A sample of bibliographic records representing textual resources was taken from OCLC's WorldCat database. More than 20 percent of the sampled records represented aggregates and more works were embodied in aggregates than were embodied in single work manifestations. A variety of issues, including cataloging practices and the varying definitions of aggregates, made it difficult to accurately identify and quantify the presence of aggregates using only the information from bibliographic records.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.016993519 = product of:
  0.08496759 = sum of:
    0.08496759 = weight(_text_:22 in 3184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08496759 = score(doc=3184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3184)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vortrag anläasslich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.012016232 = product of:
  0.06008116 = sum of:
    0.06008116 = weight(_text_:22 in 1967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06008116 = score(doc=1967,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 1967, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1967)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The paper discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and /or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the DDC (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.010013527 = product of:
  0.050067633 = sum of:
    0.050067633 = weight(_text_:22 in 1962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050067633 = score(doc=1962,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1962, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1962)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article reports on the second part of an initiative of the authors on researching classification systems with the conceptual model defined by the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD) final report. In an earlier study, the authors explored whether the FRSAD conceptual model could be extended beyond subject authority data to model classification data. The focus of the current study is to determine if classification data modeled using FRSAD can be used to solve real-world discovery problems in multicultural and multilingual contexts. The article discusses the relationships between entities (same type or different types) in the context of classification systems that involve multiple translations and/or multicultural implementations. Results of two case studies are presented in detail: (a) two instances of the Dewey Decimal Classification [DDC] (DDC 22 in English, and the Swedish-English mixed translation of DDC 22), and (b) Chinese Library Classification. The use cases of conceptual models in practice are also discussed.

0.009912886 = product of:
  0.04956443 = sum of:
    0.04956443 = weight(_text_:22 in 4346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04956443 = score(doc=4346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4346, 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=4346)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

1.11.2005 18:56:22

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 4787) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=4787,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 4787, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4787)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records Working Group (FRSAR WG) is the third IFLA Working Group of the FRBR family. It was formed in April 2005 and it was charged with the task of developing a conceptual model of FRBR Group 3 entities within the FRBR framework as they relate to the "aboutness" of works. This paper introduces the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), the model developed by the FRSAR WG, and discusses issues raised during the world-wide review.

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 8.2014 17:12:54

0.008496759 = product of:
  0.042483795 = sum of:
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 1464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=1464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1464, 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=1464)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 3150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=3150,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 3150, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3150)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) Working Group was formed in 2005 as the third IFLA working group of the FRBR family to address subject authority data issues and to investigate the direct and indirect uses of subject authority data by a wide range of users. This paper introduces the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD), the model developed by the FRSAR Working Group, and discusses it in the context of other related conceptual models defined in the specifications during recent years, including the British Standard BS8723-5: Structured vocabularies for information retrieval - Guide Part 5: Exchange formats and protocols for interoperability, W3C's SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference, and OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. These models enable the consideration of the functions of subject authority data and concept schemes at a higher level that is independent of any implementation, system, or specific context, while allowing us to focus on the semantics, structures, and interoperability of subject authority data.

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 1960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=1960,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 1960, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1960)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This book offers the first comprehensive exploration of the development and use of the International Federation of Library Association's newly released model for subject authority data, covering everything from the rationale for creating the model to practical steps for implementing it.

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=700,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present a prototype cataloging interface, which provides easier data entry, follows the cataloger's thought process and is based on the advantages of the IFLA LRM model. The paper summarizes all stages of the conceptual design and shows how the LRM was implemented. The main purpose of the cataloging interface design is to show how a LRM-based cataloging module might look like and how it could improve the existing cataloging process.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The study Functional Requirements for Bibliograpbic Records (FRBR) was commissioned by IFLA and published in 1998. It defines the core functions of a catalogue (and bibliographic records) as a gateway to information. For that purpose an abstract entity-relationship model of a catalogue is proposed. The FRBR model is revolutionary. The (computer) catalogue is not seen as a sequence of bibliographic records and a replica of the traditional card catalogue, but rather as a network of connected entities, enabling the user to perform seamlessly all the necessary functions. So far there has been some theoretical discussion of the model and some limited experiments, but there is a lack of research in how to implement this theoretical model in practice, in new-generation catalogues. In this paper some reactions to the model are analysed. The main focus is an consequences of the model for the OPAC interface design, particularly the searching functionality and display of results.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=2433,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This report presents the results of desk-top based study of projects and initiatives in the area of linking and mapping subject tools. While its goal is to provide areas of further study for cross-language subject access in the European Library, and specifically the national libraries of the Ten New Member States, it is not restricted to cross-language mappings since some of the tools used to create links across thesauri or subject headings in the same language may also be appropriate for cross-language mapping. Tools reviewed have been selected to represent a variety of approaches (e.g. subject heading to subject heading, thesaurus to thesaurus, classification to subject heading) reflecting the variety of subject access tools in use in the European Library. The results show that there is no single solution that would be appropriate for all libraries but that parts of several initiatives may be applicable on a technical, organisational or content level.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=2501,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2501, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2501)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is a relatively new conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. While it is recognized among library experts, there is a considerable lack of user studies. A pilot study, consisting of three different tasks, was conducted to test the instruments for acquiring mental models of the bibliographic universe. Results show that users do not have a consistent mental model of the bibliographic universe and that various techniques used can be useful for acquiring individuals' mental models of the bibliographic universe. Of the three tasks, the one asking people to rank pairs of similar item according to substitutability revealed results that were closest to FRBR, while card sorting and concept mapping exercises failed to provide a single alternative model.

0.005796136 = product of:
  0.028980678 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=846)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper presents the approach of using the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model to investigate the complicated sets of relationships among different versions of a classification system for the purposes of specifying provenance of classification data and facilitating collaborative efforts for using and reusing classification data, particularly in a linked data setting. The long-term goal of this research goes beyond the Dewey Decimal Classification that is used as a case. It addresses the questions of if and how the modelling approach and the FRBR-based model itself can be generalized and applied to other classification systems, multilingual and multicultural vocabularies, and even non-KOS resources that share similar characteristics.

0.005464649 = product of:
  0.027323244 = sum of:
    0.027323244 = weight(_text_:it in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027323244 = score(doc=2646,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.18076637 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the last decade a discussion has been going an in the Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) about the principles of cataloguing. This discussion was initiated by the widespread replacement of the card and list catalogues by Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) since 1980. In this paper we discuss the role of subject cataloguing in three important documents that are the results of this discussion. Our conclusion is that the interest in subject cataloguing has grown remarkably, but is still not an the level it deserves given the fact that a great part of all searches in OPACs are subject oriented.

Content

1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.

0.005464649 = product of:
  0.027323244 = sum of:
    0.027323244 = weight(_text_:it in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027323244 = score(doc=2094,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.18076637 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The FR family of conceptual models has grown to include three separate models prepared independently over many years by different working groups: FRBR for bibliographic data, FRAD for authority data, and FRSAD for subject authority data. Even as FRAD and FRSAD were being finalized in 2009-2010, it became clear that it would be necessary to combine or consolidate the FR family into a single coherent model to clarify the understanding of the overall model and remove barriers to its adoption. The FRBR Review Group has been working towards this since 2011, constituting a Consolidation Editorial Group in 2013. The consolidation task involves not only spelling out how the three existing models fit together, but requires taking a fresh look at the models to incorporate insights gained since their initial publications. This paper, based directly on the work of the Consolidation Editorial Group, provides the first public report of the consolidated model, tentatively referred to as the FRBR-Library Reference Model (FRBR-LRM), and the guiding principles that have been applied in its development.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 5857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=5857,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 5857, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5857)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The IFLA study Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) set a new frame for both cataloguing codes and subject analysis. The Paris Principles defined the functions of the catalogue followed by both cataloguing codes used in Slovenia: P. Kalan's Abecedni imenski katalog and E. Verona's Pravilnik i prirunik za izradbe abecednih kataloga. FRBR defines the functions for records themselves, irrespective of the type of the database consisting of these records. Compared to the requirements for the national bibliographic records as defined by FRBR, the records belonging to the Slovenian national bibliography show more descriptive elements and less notes on bibliographic history, which reflects in lack of uniform titles. As the uniform title itself enables the identification of related works and their expressions, this practice does not satisfy the FRBR requirements. Differences in the extent of records for different types of material derive from decentralised processing at the National and University Library. It is therefore necessary to establish uniform criteria for both the materials included into the Slovenian national bibliography, and the extent of data elements.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 2378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=2378,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 2378, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2378)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents one part of a wider study, performed at the Department of library and information science and book studies (LIS & BS) at the University of Ljubljana (UL). The study investigated the perceptions of user friendliness of information-retrieval systems (IRS) and the role of individual characteristics of users in these perceptions. Based on an expert study, a user study with 61 postgraduate students of the UL was performed. Three interfaces of e-journals were studied: Science Direct, Proquest Direct, and Ebsco Host. Questionnaires and observations were used for data collection. The users'perceptions of user friendliness and of importance of auxiliary functions were investigated. Also, the connections between these perceptions and the users'individual characteristics were identified. Three sets of individual characteristics were included: approaches to studying, thinking styles, and hemisphere leanings. In connection with the dimensions of individual characteristics, very different perceptions of user friendliness were expressed. Some dimensions of individual characteristics were also found to be connected to the users'academic areas. It is shown that participants from different academic areas have different requirements and perceptions of user friendliness. The results of the study are relevant for the design of the user interfaces of disciplinary IR systems. They also have implications for other areas, for example, user education and training.

0.004830113 = product of:
  0.024150565 = sum of:
    0.024150565 = weight(_text_:it in 3743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024150565 = score(doc=3743,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.15977642 = fieldWeight in 3743, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3743)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In 2008 the FRBR/CRM Harmonisation Working Group has achieved a major milestone: a complete version of the object-oriented definition of FRBR (FRBRoo) was released for comment. After a brief overview of the history and context of the Working Group, this paper focuses on the primary contributions resulting from this work. - FRBRoo is a self-contained document which expresses the concepts of FRBR using the objectoriented methodology and framework of CIDOC CRM. It is an alternative view on library conceptualisation for a different purpose, not a replacement for FRBR. - This 'translation' process presented an opportunity to verify and confirm FRBR's internal consistency. - FRBRoo offers a common view of library and museum documentation as two kinds of information from memory institutions. Such a common view is necessary to provide interoperable information systems for all users interested in accessing common or related content. - The analysis provided an opportunity for mutual enrichment of FRBR and CIDOC CRM. Examples include: - - Addition of the modelling of time and events to FRBR, which can be seen in its application to the publishing process - - Clarification of the manifestation entity - - Explicit modelling of performances and recordings in FRBR - - Adding the work entity to CRM - - Adding the identifier assignment process to CRM. - Producing a formalisation which is more suited for implementation with object-oriented tools, and which facilitates the testing and adoption of FRBR concepts in implementations with different functional specifications and in different environments.