Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.031424463 = product of:
  0.14664748 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=1877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
    0.09954346 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09954346 = score(doc=1877,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.8516034 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=1877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.3/4, S.286-302

0.011266903 = product of:
  0.05257888 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5188)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5188)
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5188, 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=5188)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Date

30. 5.2019 19:14:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.8, S.683-701

0.0017956087 = product of:
  0.02513852 = sum of:
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=2767,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2767, 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=2767)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In this article, we describe a conceptual model for video games and interactive media. Existing conceptual models such as the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) are not adequate to represent the unique descriptive attributes, levels of variance, and relationships among video games. Previous video game-specific models tend to focus on the development of video games and their technical aspects. Our model instead attempts to reflect how users such as game players, collectors, and scholars understand video games and the relationships among them. We specifically consider use cases of gamers, with future intentions of using this conceptual model as a foundation for developing a union catalog for various libraries and museums. In the process of developing the model, we encountered many challenges, including conceptual overlap with and divergence from FRBR, entity scoping, complex relationships among entities, and the question of how to model additional content for game expansion. Future work will focus on making this model interoperable with existing ontologies as well as further understanding and description of content and relationships.

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 2343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=2343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2343, 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=2343)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Despite increasing interest in and acknowledgment of the significance of video games, current descriptive practices are not sufficiently robust to support searching, browsing, and other access behaviors from diverse user groups. To address this issue, the Game Metadata Research Group at the University of Washington Information School, in collaboration with the Seattle Interactive Media Museum, worked to create a standardized metadata schema. This metadata schema was empirically evaluated using multiple approaches-collaborative review, schema testing, semi-structured user interview, and a large-scale survey. Reviewing and testing the schema revealed issues and challenges in sourcing the metadata for particular elements, determining the level of granularity for data description, and describing digitally distributed games. The findings from user studies suggest that users value various subject and visual metadata, information about how games are related to each other, and data regarding game expansions/alterations such as additional content and networked features. The metadata schema was extensively revised based on the evaluation results, and we present the new element definitions from the revised schema in this article. This work will serve as a platform and catalyst for advances in the design and use of video game metadata.

0.0015155592 = product of:
  0.021217827 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 5464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=5464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 5464, 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=5464)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Purpose Library work is increasingly being explored from the perspective of design. Still, little work has actively explored specific aspects of design as they relate to library cataloging. The purpose of this paper is to dive deeper into the relationship between library cataloging and design by exploring a specific aspect of design - the concept of repertoire, or the use of previous experiences and bodies of knowledge during current work. Design/methodology/approach To examine catalogers' use of repertoire, this paper employed a juxtaposition of field observations of professional library catalogers' work processes with elements of "think-aloud" protocols. Findings The researchers identified three major types of repertory knowledge that were demonstrated by catalogers: internally embedded repertory knowledge; externally embedded repertory knowledge; and seeking out new knowledge using other sources. Additionally, certain trends were noted concerning which repertory knowledge was utilized for which particular task. Determining subject and genre headings were noted for relying quite extensively on internal repertoire such as personal knowledge and institutional knowledge, along with external sources, such as personal notes and local examples. Originality/value This paper adds to a growing body of work calling for design approaches in libraries and related information settings, and breaks ground by applying the previously unexplored concept of repertoire to librarianship, specifically library cataloging, which offers a new perspective on cataloger's judgement.