Search (358 results, page 1 of 18)

0.070191205 = product of:
  0.14038241 = sum of:
    0.11458302 = weight(_text_:space in 358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11458302 = score(doc=358,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.46124378 = fieldWeight in 358, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=358)
    0.025799382 = product of:
      0.051598765 = sum of:
        0.051598765 = weight(_text_:22 in 358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051598765 = score(doc=358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 358, 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=358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a year-long survey conducted at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) to determine what level of cataloging copy (Library of Congress, member input, or none) is present on OCLC at the time an item is received in Technical Services and after a six-month waiting period. These results were used to divert selected monographs from the normal workflow in order to expedite their cataloging and to release needed shelf space for other items.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 7(1987) no.3, S.13-22

0.049793392 = product of:
  0.19917357 = sum of:
    0.19917357 = sum of:
      0.10887573 = weight(_text_:model in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10887573 = score(doc=2900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.59477806 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
      0.09029783 = weight(_text_:22 in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09029783 = score(doc=2900,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.045528244 = product of:
  0.09105649 = sum of:
    0.07161439 = weight(_text_:space in 4145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07161439 = score(doc=4145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.28827736 = fieldWeight in 4145, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4145)
    0.019442094 = product of:
      0.03888419 = sum of:
        0.03888419 = weight(_text_:model in 4145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03888419 = score(doc=4145,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.21242073 = fieldWeight in 4145, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to present the results of the first two tasks of a user study looking into mental models of the bibliographic universe and especially their comparison to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) conceptual model, which has not yet been user tested. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employes a combination of techniques for eliciting mental models and consisted of three tasks, two of which, card sorting and concept mapping, are presented herein. Its participants were 30 individuals residing in the general area of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Findings - Cumulative results of concept mapping show a strong resemblance to FRBR. Card sorts did not produce conclusive results. In both tasks, participants paid special attention to the original expression, indicating that a special place for it should be considered. Research limitations/implications - The study was performed using a relatively small sample of participants living in a geographically limited space using relatively straight-forward examples. Practical implications - Some solid evidence is provided for adoption of FRBR as the conceptual basis for cataloguing. Originality/value - This is the first widely published user study of FRBR, applying novel methodological approaches in the field of Library and Information Science.

0.045528244 = product of:
  0.09105649 = sum of:
    0.07161439 = weight(_text_:space in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07161439 = score(doc=3875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.28827736 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
    0.019442094 = product of:
      0.03888419 = sum of:
        0.03888419 = weight(_text_:model in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03888419 = score(doc=3875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.21242073 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This presentation applies the principles of phylogenetic classification to the phenomenon of bibliographic relationships in library catalogues. We argue that while the FRBR paradigm supports hierarchical bibliographic relationships between works and their various expressions and manifestations, we need a different paradigm to support associative bibliographic relationships of the kind detected in previous research. Numerous studies have shown the existence and importance of bibliographic relationships that lie outside that hierarchical FRBR model: particularly the importance of bibliographic families. We would like to suggest phylogenetics as a potential means of gaining access to those more elusive and ephemeral relationships. Phylogenetic analysis does not follow the Platonic conception of an abstract work that gives rise to specific instantiations; rather, it tracks relationships of kinship as they evolve over time. We use two examples to suggest ways in which phylogenetic trees could be represented in future library catalogues. The novels of Jane Austen are used to indicate how phylogenetic trees can represent, with greater accuracy, the line of Jane Austen adaptations, ranging from contemporary efforts to complete her unfinished work, through to the more recent efforts to graft horror memes onto the original text. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey provides an example of charting relationships both backwards and forwards in time, across different media and genres. We suggest three possible means of applying phylogenetic s in the future: enhancement of the relationship designators in RDA, crowdsourcing user tags, and extracting relationship trees through big data analysis.

0.042680047 = product of:
  0.17072019 = sum of:
    0.17072019 = sum of:
      0.09332205 = weight(_text_:model in 7159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09332205 = score(doc=7159,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.50980973 = fieldWeight in 7159, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=7159)
      0.07739814 = weight(_text_:22 in 7159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07739814 = score(doc=7159,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 7159, 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=7159)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 8.2001 15:46:46

Footnote

Mit Abb. "AACR type of publication model"

0.035759076 = product of:
  0.1430363 = sum of:
    0.1430363 = sum of:
      0.10433724 = weight(_text_:model in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10433724 = score(doc=1050,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.5699847 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
      0.03869907 = weight(_text_:22 in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03869907 = score(doc=1050,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1050, 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=1050)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) presents a complex conceptual model. Because of this, it is not easy for everyone to understand. The purpose of this paper is to make some of the more difficult aspects of the FRBR model, in particular the Croup 1 entities work, expression, manifestation, and item, easier to understand by placing FRBR in the context of what it is: a conceptual entity-relationship model. To this end, a definition of the term "model" is presented, a variety of types and junctions of models are introduced, conceptual models are discussed in detail, modeling an abstraction is explained, and different ways of interpreting FRBR are suggested. Various models used in the history of cataloging are introduced to place FRBR in the context of the historical development of document models.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.03556671 = product of:
  0.14226684 = sum of:
    0.14226684 = sum of:
      0.07776838 = weight(_text_:model in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07776838 = score(doc=3954,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.42484146 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
      0.064498454 = weight(_text_:22 in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064498454 = score(doc=3954,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

30. 8.2005 9:12:22

0.03555758 = product of:
  0.14223032 = sum of:
    0.14223032 = sum of:
      0.10998109 = weight(_text_:model in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10998109 = score(doc=2786,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.60081655 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
      0.032249227 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032249227 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Content

Part I. Work, model, technologyThe work -- The model -- The technology -- Part II. FRBR and other solutions -- Introduction -- FRBR : standard for international sharing -- The entity-relation model -- What is modeled in FRBR -- Does FRBR meet FRBR's objectives? -- Some issues that arise -- Bibliographic description and the Semantic Web.

Date

12. 2.2016 16:22:58

LCSH

FRBR (Conceptual model)

Subject

FRBR (Conceptual model)

0.0327145 = product of:
  0.130858 = sum of:
    0.130858 = weight(_text_:vector in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.130858 = score(doc=846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30654848 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.439392 = idf(docFreq=191, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.4268754 = fieldWeight in 846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.439392 = idf(docFreq=191, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=846)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

It is well known that, within the Latin production of written text, peculiar metric schemes were followed not only in poetic compositions, but also in many prose works. Such metric patterns were based on so-called syllabic quantity, that is, on the length of the involved syllables, and there is substantial evidence suggesting that certain authors had a preference for certain metric patterns over others. In this research we investigate the possibility to employ syllabic quantity as a base for deriving rhythmic features for the task of computational authorship attribution of Latin prose texts. We test the impact of these features on the authorship attribution task when combined with other topic-agnostic features. Our experiments, carried out on three different datasets using support vector machines (SVMs) show that rhythmic features based on syllabic quantity are beneficial in discriminating among Latin prose authors.

0.030533921 = product of:
  0.122135684 = sum of:
    0.122135684 = sum of:
      0.07698677 = weight(_text_:model in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07698677 = score(doc=2425,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.4205716 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
      0.045148917 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045148917 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, 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=2425)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The FRBR model is by many considered to be an important contribution to the next generation of bibliographic catalogues, but a major challenge for the library community is how to use this model on already existing MARC-based bibliographic catalogues. This problem requires a solution for the interpretation and conversion of MARC records, and a tool for this kind of conversion is developed as a part of the Norwegian BIBSYS FRBR project. The tool is based on a systematic approach to the interpretation and conversion process and is designed to be adaptable to the rules applied in different catalogues.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.02979923 = product of:
  0.11919692 = sum of:
    0.11919692 = sum of:
      0.086947694 = weight(_text_:model in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.086947694 = score(doc=2434,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.4749872 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
      0.032249227 = weight(_text_:22 in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032249227 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2434, 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=2434)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The report from the IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) recommended a new approach to cataloging based on an entity-relationship model. This study examined a single work, The Expedition of Humphry Clinker, to determine benefits and drawbacks associated with creating such an entity-relationship model. Humphry Clinker was selected for several reasons - it has been previously studied, it is widely held, and it is a work of mid-level complexity. In addition to analyzing the bibliographic records, many books were examined to ensure the accuracy of the resulting FRBR model. While it was possible to identify works and manifestations, identifying expressions was problematic. Reliable identification of expressions frequently necessitated the examination of the books themselves. Enhanced manifestation records where the roles of editors, illustrators, translators, and other contributors are explicitly identified may be a viable alternative to expressions. For Humphry Clinker, the enhanced record approach avoids the problem of identifying expressions while providing similar functionality. With the enhanced manifestation record, the three remaining entity-relationship structures - works, manifestations, and items - the FRBR model provides a powerful means to improve bibliographic organization and navigation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.028645756 = product of:
  0.11458302 = sum of:
    0.11458302 = weight(_text_:space in 3584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11458302 = score(doc=3584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.46124378 = fieldWeight in 3584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3584)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Comments on CD-ROM discs reviewed for the categories of Best Upgrades and Best Overall Multimedia in the Software Publishers Association Codies awards. Suggests that CD-ROM products are being produced with hard disk space requirements that are too high for the home market. Reviews 3 CD-ROM discs for cataloguing training all from InfoTrain: CatSkill (a multimedia course on AACR2 and MARC); CatSkill: USMARC made Easy; and CatSkill: Format Integration Made Easy

0.028453367 = product of:
  0.11381347 = sum of:
    0.11381347 = sum of:
      0.062214702 = weight(_text_:model in 5286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.062214702 = score(doc=5286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.33987316 = fieldWeight in 5286, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5286)
      0.051598765 = weight(_text_:22 in 5286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051598765 = score(doc=5286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5286, 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=5286)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Proposes a new model for bibliographic access, the virtual catalogue, to serve the virtual library. Suggests the use of current software and networks to build links between bibliographic databases of all kinds, including full text, to enable the user to search a specified subset of databases. Suggests that local data be limited to holdings information linked to, but separate from, bibliographic databases both local and remote

Date

8.10.2000 14:47:22

0.028453367 = product of:
  0.11381347 = sum of:
    0.11381347 = sum of:
      0.062214702 = weight(_text_:model in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.062214702 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.33987316 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
      0.051598765 = weight(_text_:22 in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051598765 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4564, 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=4564)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliographic relationships are one of the most active research areas in knowledge organization, especially in cataloguing. This study attempts to examine and map the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) bibliographic relationships with Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships, and to a ssess the congruence between them. The FRBR conceptual model provides a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships in chapter 5, illustrating them in 11 tables. This study shows that there is considerable congruence between these two taxonomies.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:13:52

0.027262084 = product of:
  0.10904834 = sum of:
    0.10904834 = weight(_text_:vector in 3186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10904834 = score(doc=3186,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30654848 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.439392 = idf(docFreq=191, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.3557295 = fieldWeight in 3186, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.439392 = idf(docFreq=191, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3186)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliographic collections in traditional libraries often compile records from distributed sources where variable criteria have been applied to the normalization of the data. Furthermore, the source records often follow classical standards, such as MARC21, where a strict normalization of author names is not enforced. The identification of equivalent records in large catalogues is therefore required, for example, when migrating the data to new repositories which apply modern specifications for cataloguing, such as the FRBR and RDA standards. An open-source tool has been implemented to assist authority control in bibliographic catalogues when external features (such as the citations found in scientific articles) are not available for the disambiguation of creator names. This tool is based on similarity measures between the variants of author names combined with a parser which interprets the dates and periods associated with the creator. An efficient data structure (the unigram frequency vector trie) has been used to accelerate the identification of variants. The algorithms employed and the attribute grammar are described in detail and their implementation is distributed as an open-source resource to allow for an easier uptake.

0.026171934 = product of:
  0.104687735 = sum of:
    0.104687735 = sum of:
      0.06598866 = weight(_text_:model in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06598866 = score(doc=941,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.36048993 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
      0.03869907 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03869907 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 941, 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=941)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Inferring the gender of named entities present in a text has several practical applications in information sciences. Existing approaches toward name gender identification rely exclusively on using the gender distributions from labeled data. In the absence of such labeled data, these methods fail. In this article, we propose a two-stage model that is able to infer the gender of names present in text without requiring explicit name-gender labels. We use coreference resolution as the backbone for our proposed model. To aid coreference resolution where the existing contextual information does not suffice, we use a retrieval-assisted context aggregation framework. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art name gender inference is possible without supervision. Our proposed method matches or outperforms several supervised approaches and commercially used methods on five English language datasets from different domains.

Date

22. 3.2023 12:00:14

0.024896696 = product of:
  0.099586785 = sum of:
    0.099586785 = sum of:
      0.054437865 = weight(_text_:model in 6737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054437865 = score(doc=6737,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.29738903 = fieldWeight in 6737, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6737)
      0.045148917 = weight(_text_:22 in 6737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045148917 = score(doc=6737,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6737, 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=6737)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews issues related to the cataloguing of Internet resources and considers short term and long term directions for cataloguing and the gereal provision of library services for remotely accessible, electronic information resources. Discusses the strengths and weaknesses of using a library catalogue model to improve access to Internet resources. Based on experience gained through 2 OCLC Internet cataloguing projects, recommends continued application of library cataloguing standard and methods for Internet resources with the expectation that catalogues, cataloguing and libraries in general will continue to evolve. Points to problems inherent in the MARC field 856

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.024896696 = product of:
  0.099586785 = sum of:
    0.099586785 = sum of:
      0.054437865 = weight(_text_:model in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054437865 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.29738903 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
      0.045148917 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045148917 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7683, 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=7683)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information

Source

OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22

0.024896696 = product of:
  0.099586785 = sum of:
    0.099586785 = sum of:
      0.054437865 = weight(_text_:model in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054437865 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.29738903 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
      0.045148917 = weight(_text_:22 in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045148917 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047605187 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reviews issues related to the cataloging of Internet resources and considers shortand long-term directions for cataloging and the general provision of library services for remotely accessible, electronic information resources. The strengths and weakness of using a library catalog model to improve access to Internet resources are discussed and compared with a review of related efforts. Based on experience gained through two OCLC Internet cataloging projects, the authors recommend continued and vigorous appplication of library cataloging standards and methods for Internet resources with the expectation that catalogs, cataloging, and libraries in general will continue to evolve.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.197-238

0.021484317 = product of:
  0.08593727 = sum of:
    0.08593727 = weight(_text_:space in 1332) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08593727 = score(doc=1332,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.34593284 = fieldWeight in 1332, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1332)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considering the expansion of research output across the globe, along with the growing demand for quantitative tracking of research outcomes by government authorities and research institutions, the challenges of author identity are increasing. In recent years, a number of initiatives to help solve the author "name game" have been launched from all areas of the scholarly information market space. This article introduces the various author identification tools and services Thomson Reuters provides, including Distinct Author Sets and ResearcherID-which reflect a combination of automated clustering and author participation-as well as the use of other data types, such as grants and patents, to expand the universe of author identification. Industry-wide initiatives such as the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) are also described. Future author-related developments in ResearcherID and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge are also included.