Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06756985 = product of:
  0.1351397 = sum of:
    0.1351397 = sum of:
      0.07838202 = weight(_text_:library in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07838202 = score(doc=562,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.56927717 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.056757677 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056757677 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

0.027736563 = product of:
  0.055473126 = sum of:
    0.055473126 = sum of:
      0.019999579 = weight(_text_:library in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019999579 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
      0.035473548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035473548 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052364815 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book looks at the ways that we define the things of the bibliographic world, and in particular how our bibliographic models reflect our technology and the assumed goals of libraries. There is, of course, a history behind this, as well as a present and a future. The first part of the book begins by looking at the concept of the 'work' in library cataloging theory, and how that concept has evolved since the mid-nineteenth century to date. Next it talks about models and technology, two areas that need to be understood before taking a long look at where we are today. It then examines the new bibliographic model called Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the technical and social goals that the FRBR Study Group was tasked to address. The FRBR entities are analyzed in some detail. Finally, FRBR as an entity-relation model is compared to a small set of Semantic Web vocabularies that can be seen as variants of the multi-entity bibliographic model that FRBR introduced.

Date

12. 2.2016 16:22:58

0.018761268 = product of:
  0.037522536 = sum of:
    0.037522536 = product of:
      0.07504507 = sum of:
        0.07504507 = weight(_text_:library in 4796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07504507 = score(doc=4796,freq=44.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.5450414 = fieldWeight in 4796, product of:
              6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
                44.0 = termFreq=44.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4796)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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].
Key recommendations of the report are: - That library leaders identify sets of data as possible candidates for early exposure as Linked Data and foster a discussion about Open Data and rights; - That library standards bodies increase library participation in Semantic Web standardization, develop library data standards that are compatible with Linked Data, and disseminate best-practice design patterns tailored to library Linked Data; - That data and systems designers design enhanced user services based on Linked Data capabilities, create URIs for the items in library datasets, develop policies for managing RDF vocabularies and their URIs, and express library data by re-using or mapping to existing Linked Data vocabularies; - That librarians and archivists preserve Linked Data element sets and value vocabularies and apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to Linked Data datasets.

0.013999705 = product of:
  0.02799941 = sum of:
    0.02799941 = product of:
      0.05599882 = sum of:
        0.05599882 = weight(_text_:library in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05599882 = score(doc=1973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.40671125 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library Journal NetConnect. 2003, Fall, S.8-12

0.011999747 = product of:
  0.023999494 = sum of:
    0.023999494 = product of:
      0.047998987 = sum of:
        0.047998987 = weight(_text_:library in 4169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047998987 = score(doc=4169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 4169, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Library technology reports ; 46.2010,1

0.011999747 = product of:
  0.023999494 = sum of:
    0.023999494 = product of:
      0.047998987 = sum of:
        0.047998987 = weight(_text_:library in 4170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047998987 = score(doc=4170,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 4170, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Library technology reports ; 46.2010,2

0.009999789 = product of:
  0.019999579 = sum of:
    0.019999579 = product of:
      0.039999157 = sum of:
        0.039999157 = weight(_text_:library in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039999157 = score(doc=2525,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.

0.0069998526 = product of:
  0.013999705 = sum of:
    0.013999705 = product of:
      0.02799941 = sum of:
        0.02799941 = weight(_text_:library in 2174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02799941 = score(doc=2174,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2174, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2174)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Reshaping the Library Catalog: Selected Papers from the International Conference FSR2014 (Rome, February 27-28, 2014). Vgl.: DOI:10.1080/01639374.2014.943446.

0.0059998734 = product of:
  0.011999747 = sum of:
    0.011999747 = product of:
      0.023999494 = sum of:
        0.023999494 = weight(_text_:library in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023999494 = score(doc=1230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A Virtual union catalog is a possible alternative to the centralized database of distributed resources found in many library systems. Such a catalog would not be maintained in a single location but would be created in real time by searching each local campus or affiliate library's catalog through the Z39.50 protocol. This would eliminate the redundancy of record storage as well as the expense of loading and maintaining access to the central catalog. This article describes a test implementation of a virtual union catalog for the University of California system. It describes some of the differences between the virtual catalog and the existing, centralized union catalog (MELVYL). The research described in the paper suggests enhancements that must be made if the virtual union catalog is to become a reasonable service alternative to the MELVYL® catalog.