Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2f_documents %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c heery evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bliss%2c henry evelyn %2f bloss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1
precises%3a%2fdocuments %2f subject classification schemes%3a bloss%2c henry evelyn %2f bliss bibliographic classification %2f texts%22 1

Chen, Y.-n.; Chen, S.-j.: ¬A metadata practice of the IFLA FRBR model : a case study for the National Palace Museum in Taipei (2004) 0.01
```
0.0066223354 = product of:
  0.046356346 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=4436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4436)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=4436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 4436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4436)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
```
Abstract

In 1998, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model which is composed of four entities (work, expression, manifestation and item) and their associative relationships (primary, responsibility and subject), was proposed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). The FRBR model can be deployed as a logical framework for proceeding metadata analysis and developing metadata format. This paper presents a case study of the National Palace Museum (NPM) in Taipei to examine the feasibility of the FRBR model. Based on the examination of case study at the NPM, the FRBR model is proven to be a useful and fundamental framework for metadata analysis and implementation. Findings show that the FRBR model is helpful in identifying proper metadata elements organization and their distribution over the FRBR entities. The model is more suitable for media-centric and association-rich contents. However, in order to refine the FRBR model as a common framework for metadata, it would also require supportive mechanisms for management responsibility relationships for the workflow consideration and refine the distinction between work and expression entity.