Search (53 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Dousa, T.M.: E. Wyndham Hulme's classification of the attributes of books : On an early model of a core bibliographical entity (2017) 0.02 
    0.022747185 = product of:
  0.10615353 = sum of:
    0.03296595 = weight(_text_:classification in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296595 = score(doc=3859,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3447546 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
    0.04022163 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04022163 = score(doc=3859,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
    0.03296595 = weight(_text_:classification in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03296595 = score(doc=3859,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3447546 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data - modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid - 1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early 20th - century British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911 - 1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can conceivably be classified. These he first divided into accidental and inseparable attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition - level and copy - level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into physical and non - physical attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstraction hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity - the book - , whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.
  2. Campbell, D.G.; Mayhew, A.: ¬A phylogenetic approach to bibliographic families and relationships (2017) 0.02 
    0.020404775 = product of:
  0.09522228 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=3875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
    0.061576545 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061576545 = score(doc=3875,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.52679294 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=3875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    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.
  3. Weinheimer, J.: ¬A visual explanation of the areas defined by AACR2, RDA, ISBD, LC NAF, LC Classification, LC Subject Headings, Dewey Classification, MARC21 : plus a quick look at ISO2709, MARCXML and a version of BIBFRAME (2015) 0.02 
    0.017691448 = product of:
  0.08256009 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=2882,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=2882,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
  4. Aitchison, C.R.: Cataloging virtual reality artworks: challenges and future prospects (2021) 0.02 
    0.017635275 = product of:
  0.08229795 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 711, 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=711)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=711)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 711, 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=711)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    In 2019, Pepperdine Libraries acquired two virtual reality artworks by filmmaker and artist Paisley Smith: Homestay and Unceded Territories. To bring awareness to these pieces, Pepperdine Libraries added these works to the library catalog, creating bibliographic records for both films. There were many challenges and considerations in cataloging virtual reality art, including factors such as the nature of the work, the limits found in Resource Description and Access (RDA) and MARC, and providing access to these works. This paper discusses these topics, as well as provides recommendations for potential future standards for cataloging virtual works.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.5, p.492-509
  5. Lee, W.-C.: Conflicts of semantic warrants in cataloging practices (2017) 0.01 
    0.011756477 = product of:
  0.054863557 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3871, 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=3871)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.
  6. Petric, T.: Bibliographic organisation of continuing resources in relation to the IFLA models : research within the Croatian corpus of continuing resources (2016) 0.01 
    0.011555316 = product of:
  0.080887206 = sum of:
    0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024005229 = score(doc=2960,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
    0.056881975 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056881975 = score(doc=2960,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Comprehensive research on continuing resources has not been conducted in Croatia, therefore this paper will indicate the current bibliographic organisation of continuing resources in comparison to the parameters set by the IFLA models, and the potential flaws of the IFLA models in the bibliographic organisation of continuing resources, in comparison to the valid national code which is used in Croatian cataloguing practice. Research on the corpus of Croatian continuing resources was performed in the period from 2000 and 2011. By using the listed population through the method of deliberate stratified sampling, the titles which had been observed were selected. Through the method of observation of bibliographic records of the selected sample in the NUL catalogue, the frequency of occurrence of parameters from the IFLA models that should identify continuing resources will be recorded and should also show the characteristics of continuing resources. In determining the parameters of observation, the FRBR model is viewed in terms of bibliographic data, FRAD is viewed in terms of other groups or entities or controlled access points for work, person and the corporate body and FRSAD in terms of the third group of entities as the subject or the subject access to continuing resources. Research results indicate that the current model of bibliographic organisation presents a high frequency of attributes that are listed in the IFLA models for all types of resources, although that was not envisaged by the PPIAK, and it is clear that the practice has moved away from the national code which does not offer solutions for all types of resources and ever more so demanding users. The current model of bibliographic organisation of the corpus of Croatian continuing resources in regards to the new IFLA model requires certain changes in order for the user to more easily access and identify continuing resources. The research results also indicate the need to update the entity expression with the attribute mode of expression, and entity manifestation with the attributes mode of issuance, as well as further consideration in terms of the bibliographic organisation of continuing resources.
  7. Danskin, A.: "Tomorrow never knows" : the end of cataloguing? (2006) 0.01 
    0.010911817 = product of:
  0.050921813 = sum of:
    0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024005229 = score(doc=6109,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
    0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013458292 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
    0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013458292 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges confronting cataloguing as we have known it and to consider how these challenges might be confronted and whether they may be surmounted. The main focus of this paper is on cataloguing rather than the catalogue, although it is obviously difficult to separate one from the other. First of all, what does "cataloguing" mean? For the purposes of this paper I have adopted a broad definition incorporating the following activities: - description of the resource sufficient for purposes of identification and for differentiation from other similar resources - identification and control of access points - identification and control of relationships with other resources - subject analysis of the resource - assignment of subject indexing terms - assignment of classification numbers The challenges facing cataloguing are all too well known. In no particular order, the major challenges are: - Increasing inputs - New kinds of information resource - Competition from other mediation services. - Perception that cataloguing is high cost and offers poor value for money. - Fiscal constraints - Declining workforce This is a daunting list. We have a choice, we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, "Turn off our minds, relax and float down stream", until we retire, take voluntary redundancy, or retrain as marketing consultants; or, we can choose to confront these challenges and consider what they really mean for cataloguing.
  8. Riva, P.; Boeuf, P. le; Zumer, M.: IFLA Library Reference Model : a conceptual model for bibliographic information (2017) 0.01 
    0.00927127 = product of:
  0.064898886 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Definition of a conceptual reference model to provide a framework for the analysis of non-administrative metadata relating to library resources. The resulting model definition was approved by the FRBR Review Group (November 2016), and then made available to the Standing Committees of the Sections on Cataloguing and Subject Analysis & Access, as well as to the ISBD Review Group, for comment in December 2016. The final document was approved by the IFLACommittee on Standards (August 2017).
  9. Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008) 0.01 
    0.008997077 = product of:
  0.062979534 = sum of:
    0.028440988 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028440988 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24331525 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.034538545 = product of:
      0.06907709 = sum of:
        0.06907709 = weight(_text_:texts in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06907709 = score(doc=2429,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4196496 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.
  10. Mapping ISBD elements to FRBR entity attributes and relationships (2004) 0.01 
    0.008639611 = product of:
  0.06047728 = sum of:
    0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035551235 = score(doc=2370,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 2370, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2370)
    0.024926046 = product of:
      0.04985209 = sum of:
        0.04985209 = weight(_text_:texts in 2370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04985209 = score(doc=2370,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.302856 = fieldWeight in 2370, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Background The ISBD Review Group has been assessing the feasibility of aligning the terminology used in the texts of the International Standard Bibliographic Descriptions (ISBDs) with that used in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). However, the group has encountered difficulties in trying to achieve that alignment, owing in large part to the fact that the terms used in FRBR were defined in the context of an entityrelationship model conceived at a higher level of abstraction than the specifications for the ISBDs. While the entities defined in the FRBR model are clearly related to the elements forming an ISBD description, they are not necessarily congruent in all respects and the relationships are too complex to be conveyed through a simple substitution of terminology. Purpose and scope The table that follows is designed to clarify the relationship between the ISBDs and the FRBR model by mapping each of the elements specified in the ISBDs to its corresponding entity attribute or relationship as defined in the FRBR model. The mapping covers all elements specified in the outlines in the latest approved editions of the ISBDs as of July 2004. The elements analyzed comprise those listed in the outline of the ISBD(G) for areas 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, as weIl as elements specified for area 3 (the material or type of resource specific area) in the current editions of ISBD(CM), ISBD(CR), ISBD(ER), and ISBD(PM). The elements analyzed in area 7 (the note area) cover specific types of notes identified in the individual ISBDs.
  11. Cossham, A.F.: Models of the bibliographic universe (2017) 0.01 
    0.006157655 = product of:
  0.08620717 = sum of:
    0.08620717 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08620717 = score(doc=3817,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.73751014 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.
  12. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The birth and re-birth of the ISBD's : process and procedures for creating and revising the International Standard Bibliographic Description (2000) 0.01 
    0.006094498 = product of:
  0.08532297 = sum of:
    0.08532297 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08532297 = score(doc=5399,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.7299458 = fieldWeight in 5399, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5399)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Footnote
    Vortrag, IFLA General Conference, Divison IV Bibliographic Control, Jerusalem, 2000
  13. O'Neill, E.T.: ¬The FRBRization of Humphry Clinker : a case study in the application of IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (2002) 0.01 
    0.006094498 = product of:
  0.08532297 = sum of:
    0.08532297 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08532297 = score(doc=2433,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.7299458 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    The goal of OCLC's FRBR projects is to examine issues associated with the conversion of a set of bibliographic records to conform to FRBR requirements (a process referred to as "FRBRization"). The goals of this FRBR project were to: - examine issues associated with creating an entity-relationship model for (i.e., "FRBRizing") a non-trivial work - better understand the relationship between the bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic record is sufficient to reliably identify the FRBR entities - to develop a data set that could be used to evaluate FRBRization algorithms. Using an exemplary work as a case study, lead scientist Ed O'Neill sought to: - better understand the relationship between bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic records is sufficient to reliably identify FRBR entities.
  14. Riva, P.; Zumer, M.: Introducing the FRBR library reference model (2015) 0.01 
    0.0052978685 = product of:
  0.03708508 = sum of:
    0.016974261 = weight(_text_:subject in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016974261 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.15806471 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
    0.020110816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2094) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020110816 = score(doc=2094,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 2094, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2094)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    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.
  15. Funktionelle Anforderungen an bibliografische Datensätze : Abschlussbericht der IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (2006) 0.01 
    0.005078748 = product of:
  0.07110247 = sum of:
    0.07110247 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07110247 = score(doc=2263,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6082881 = fieldWeight in 2263, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2263)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Content
    Originaltitel: Functional requirements for bibliographic records
  16. Seymour, C.: ¬A time to build : Israeli cataloging in transition (2000) 0.01 
    0.005027704 = product of:
  0.070387855 = sum of:
    0.070387855 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070387855 = score(doc=5412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 5412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5412)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Footnote
    Vortrag, IFLA General Conference, Divison IV Bibliographic Control, Jerusalem, 2000
  17. Plassard, M.-F.: IFLA core actvity for Universal Bibliographic Control and Internation MARC (2001) 0.01 
    0.005027704 = product of:
  0.070387855 = sum of:
    0.070387855 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070387855 = score(doc=6908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 6908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6908)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
  18. FictionFinder : a FRBR-based prototype for fiction in WorldCat (o.J.) 0.01 
    0.005027704 = product of:
  0.070387855 = sum of:
    0.070387855 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070387855 = score(doc=2432,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 2432, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2432)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    FictionFinder is a FRBR-based prototype that provides access to over 2.9 million bibliographic records for fiction books, eBooks, and audio materials described in OCLC WorldCat. This project applies principles of the FRBR model to aggregate bibliographic information above the manifestation level. Records are clustered into works using the OCLC FRBR Work-Set Algorithm. The algorithm collects bibliographic records into groups based on author and title information from bibliographic and authority records. Author names and titles are normalized to construct a key. All records with the same key are grouped together in a work set.
  19. Hickey, T.B.; O'Neill, E.T.; Toves, J.: Experiments with the IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (2002) 0.00 
    0.0049761366 = product of:
  0.06966591 = sum of:
    0.06966591 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06966591 = score(doc=1660,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5959982 = fieldWeight in 1660, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1660)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Abstract
    OCLC is investigating how best to implement IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). As part of that work, we have undertaken a series of experiments with algorithms to group existing bibliographic records into works and expressions. Working with both subsets of records and the whole WorldCat database, the algorithm we developed achieved reasonable success identifying all manifestations of a work.
  20. Geißelmann, F.: ¬The cataloging of electronic publications : ways out of heterogenity (2000) 0.00 
    0.0043094605 = product of:
  0.060332447 = sum of:
    0.060332447 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060332447 = score(doc=5401,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 5401, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5401)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
    Footnote
    Vortrag, IFLA General Conference, Divison IV Bibliographic Control, Jerusalem, 2000

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 39
  • d 8
  • i 3
  • a 1
  • f 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 20
  • p 6
  • r 3
  • n 1
  • More… Less…

Themes