Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

0.026281446 = product of:
  0.07884434 = sum of:
    0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015876798 = score(doc=3373,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=3373,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
    0.034061253 = weight(_text_:software in 3373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034061253 = score(doc=3373,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.21915624 = fieldWeight in 3373, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3373)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

A band of archivists and IT professionals at Harvard took on a project to convert nearly two million descriptions of archival collection components from marked-up text into the ArchivesSpace archival metadata management system. Starting in the mid-1990s, Harvard was an alpha implementer of EAD, an SGML (later XML) text markup language for electronic inventories, indexes, and finding aids that archivists use to wend their way through the sometimes quirky filing systems that bureaucracies establish for their records or the utter chaos in which some individuals keep their personal archives. These pathfinder documents, designed to cope with messy reality, can themselves be difficult to classify. Portions of them are rigorously structured, while other parts are narrative. Early documents predate the establishment of the standard; many feature idiosyncratic encoding that had been through several machine conversions, while others were freshly encoded and fairly consistent. In this paper, we will cover the practical and technical challenges involved in preparing a large (900MiB) corpus of XML for ingest into an open-source archival information system (ArchivesSpace). This case study will give an overview of the project, discuss problem discovery and problem solving, and address the technical challenges, analysis, solutions, and decisions and provide information on the tools produced and lessons learned. The authors of this piece are Kate Bowers, Collections Services Archivist for Metadata, Systems, and Standards at the Harvard University Archive, and Dave Mayo, a Digital Library Software Engineer for Harvard's Library and Technology Services. Kate was heavily involved in both metadata analysis and later problem solving, while Dave was the sole full-time developer assigned to the migration project.

0.02546304 = product of:
  0.07638912 = sum of:
    0.041947264 = weight(_text_:applications in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041947264 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2432066 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
    0.0140020205 = weight(_text_:of in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140020205 = score(doc=2277,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.22855641 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

Data munging, or the work of remediating, enhancing and transforming library datasets for new or improved uses, has become more important and staff-inclusive in many library technology discussions and projects. Many times we know how we want our data to look, as well as how we want our data to act in discovery interfaces or when exposed, but we are uncertain how to make the data we have into the data we want. This article introduces and compares two library data munging tools that can help: LODRefine (OpenRefine with the DERI RDF Extension) and Catmandu. The strengths and best practices of each tool are discussed in the context of metadata munging use cases for an institution's metadata migration workflow. There is a focus on Linked Open Data modeling and transformation applications of each tool, in particular how metadataists, catalogers, and programmers can create metadata quality reports, enhance existing data with LOD sets, and transform that data to a RDF model. Integration of these tools with other systems and projects, the use of domain specific transformation languages, and the expansion of vocabulary reconciliation services are mentioned.

0.021899873 = product of:
  0.09854943 = sum of:
    0.016802425 = weight(_text_:of in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802425 = score(doc=2959,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
    0.08174701 = weight(_text_:software in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08174701 = score(doc=2959,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.525975 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

RIMMF software is grew out of the need to visualize and realize records according to the RDA guidelines. The article describes the software structure and features in the creation of a r­ball, that is a small database populated by recordings of bibliographic and authority resources enriched by relationships between and among entities involved. At first it's introduced the need that led to RIMMF outcome, then starts the software functional analysis. With a description of the main steps of the r-ball building, emphasizing the issues raised. The results highlights some critical aspects, but above all the wide scope of possible developments that open the Cultural Heritage Institutions horizon to the web prospective. Conclusions display the RDF-linked­data development of the RIMMF incoming future.

0.015902052 = product of:
  0.071559235 = sum of:
    0.05872617 = weight(_text_:applications in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05872617 = score(doc=2430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34048924 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
    0.0128330635 = weight(_text_:of in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128330635 = score(doc=2430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper explores a technique to improve searcher access to library collections by providing a faceted search interface built on a data model based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). The prototype provides a Workcentric view of a moving image collection that is integrated with bibliographic and holdings data. Two sets of facets address important user needs: "what do you want?" and "how/where do you want it?" enabling patrons to narrow, broaden and pivot across facet values instead of limiting them to the tree-structured hierarchy common with existing FRBR applications. The data model illustrates how FRBR is being adapted and applied beyond the traditional library catalog.

0.01315836 = product of:
  0.059212618 = sum of:
    0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018332949 = score(doc=5718,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
    0.040879667 = weight(_text_:systems in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040879667 = score(doc=5718,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.339541 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.

0.010715243 = product of:
  0.048218597 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 2957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=2957,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2957, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2957)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 2957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=2957,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2957, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2957)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This paper conjectures that standard archival descriptions are no longer efficient in order to answer to society needs, mainly in an intercultural perspective. After a brief evaluation of the peculiarities of cultural heritage different domain languages, the specific issues of archival descriptions are discussed, seeking the possible strategies - technological as well as cultural - valid to open to an integration of descriptive languages. A particular focus is proposed on RDA, an approach which shows to be the best candidate to harmonize the separate descriptions typical of archival domain and activating the potential informative integrations with any limitation of information environments and single content quality.

0.010526687 = product of:
  0.04737009 = sum of:
    0.014666359 = weight(_text_:of in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014666359 = score(doc=3554,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=3554,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Fazit: "But in the end of the day: All the synchronisation procedures, which have been considered, failed or are too sophisticated. The project recommended cataloging in the World Cat, what includes a number of conditions and prerequisites like interfaces, data formats, working procedures etc."

Content

Präsentation, anlässlich: Workshop on the Liber Conference 2016, 29th of June 2016 , Helsinki.

0.0091910185 = product of:
  0.04135958 = sum of:
    0.025168357 = weight(_text_:applications in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025168357 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.14592396 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.016191222 = weight(_text_:of in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016191222 = score(doc=1271,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.26429096 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

Editor

Library of Congress / Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control

0.0084427325 = product of:
  0.037992295 = sum of:
    0.017552461 = weight(_text_:of in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017552461 = score(doc=3871,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

0.008145894 = product of:
  0.03665652 = sum of:
    0.020304654 = weight(_text_:of in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020304654 = score(doc=1183,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.33143494 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
    0.016351866 = weight(_text_:systems in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016351866 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) lay the foundation for a new generation of cataloging systems that recognize the difference between a particular work (e.g., Moby Dick), diverse expressions of that work (e.g., translations into German, Japanese and other languages), different versions of the same basic text (e.g., the Modern Library Classics vs. Penguin editions), and particular items (a copy of Moby Dick on the shelf). Much work has gone into finding ways to infer FRBR relationships between existing catalog records and modifying catalog interfaces to display those relationships. Relatively little work, however, has gone into exploring the creation of catalog records that are inherently based on the FRBR hierarchy of works, expressions, manifestations, and items. The Perseus Digital Library has created a new catalog that implements such a system for a small collection that includes many works with multiple versions. We have used this catalog to explore some of the implications of hierarchical catalog records for searching and browsing. Current online library catalog interfaces present many problems for searching. One commonly cited failure is the inability to find and collocate all versions of a distinct intellectual work that exist in a collection and the inability to take into account known variations in titles and personal names (Yee 2005). The IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) attempts to address some of these failings by introducing the concept of multiple interrelated bibliographic entities (IFLA 1998). In particular, relationships between abstract intellectual works and the various published instances of those works are divided into a four-level hierarchy of works (such as the Aeneid), expressions (Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), manifestations (a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid), and items (my copy of a particular paperback edition of Robert Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid). In this formulation, each level in the hierarchy "inherits" information from the preceding level. Much of the work on FRBRized catalogs so far has focused on organizing existing records that describe individual physical books. Relatively little work has gone into rethinking what information should be in catalog records, or how the records should relate to each other. It is clear, however, that a more "native" FRBR catalog would include separate records for works, expressions, manifestations, and items. In this way, all information about a work would be centralized in one record. Records for subsequent expressions of that work would add only the information specific to each expression: Samuel Butler's translation of the Iliad does not need to repeat the fact that the work was written by Homer. This approach has certain inherent advantages for collections with many versions of the same works: new publications can be cataloged more quickly, and records can be stored and updated more efficiently.

0.006995496 = product of:
  0.03147973 = sum of:
    0.015556021 = weight(_text_:of in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015556021 = score(doc=2946,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
    0.015923709 = product of:
      0.031847417 = sum of:
        0.031847417 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031847417 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, 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=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The author revisits the development of RDA from its inception in 2005 through to its initial release in 2010. The development effort is set in the context of an evolving digital environment that was transforming both the production and dissemination of information resources and the technologies used to create, store, and access data describing those resources. The author examines the interplay between strategic commitments to align RDA with new conceptual models, emerging database structures, and metadata developments in allied communities, on the one hand, and compatibility with AACR2 legacy databases on the other. Aspects of the development effort examined include the structuring of RDA as a resource description language, organizing the new standard as a working tool, and refining guidelines and instructions for recording RDA data.

Date

17. 5.2016 19:22:40

0.0068929386 = product of:
  0.031018224 = sum of:
    0.014666359 = weight(_text_:of in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014666359 = score(doc=3818,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
    0.016351866 = weight(_text_:systems in 3818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016351866 = score(doc=3818,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 3818, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3818)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

A brochure on RDA issued in 2010 includes the statements that "RDA goes beyond earlier cataloguing codes in that it provides guidelines on cataloguing digital resources and a stronger emphasis on helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want. RDA also supports clustering of bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators. This important new feature makes users more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats - an exciting development." Setting aside the fact that the author(s) of these statements and I differ on the definition of exciting, their claims are, at best, dubious. There is no evidence-empirical or anecdotal-that bibliographic records created using RDA are any better than records created using AACR2 (or AACR, for that matter) in "helping users find, identify, select, and obtain the information they want." The claim is especially unfounded in the context of the current discovery ecosystem, in which users are perfectly capable of finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining information with absolutely no assistance from libraries or the bibliographic data libraries create.
Equally fallacious is the statement that support for the "clustering bibliographic records to show relationships between works and their creators" is an "important new feature" of RDA. AACR2 bibliographic records and the systems housing them can, did, and do show such relationships. Finally, whether users want or care to be made "more aware of a work's different editions, translations, or physical formats" is debatable. As an aim, it sounds less like what a user wants and more like what a cataloging librarian thinks a user should want. As Amanda Cossham writes in her recently issued doctoral thesis: "The explicit focus on user needs in the FRBR model, the International Cataloguing Principles, and RDA: Resource Description and Access does not align well with the ways that users use, understand, and experience library catalogues nor with the ways that they understand and experience the wider information environment. User tasks, as constituted in the FRBR model and RDA, are insufficient to meet users' needs." (p. 11, emphasis in the original)
The point of this paper is not to critique RDA (a futile task, since RDA is here to stay), but to make plain that its claim to be a solution to the challenge(s) of bibliographic description in the Internet Age is unfounded, and, secondarily, to explain why such wild claims continue to be advanced and go unchallenged by the rank and file of career catalogers.

0.006729558 = product of:
  0.030283011 = sum of:
    0.01612188 = weight(_text_:of in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01612188 = score(doc=3401,freq=116.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2631591 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          10.770329 = tf(freq=116.0), with freq of:
            116.0 = termFreq=116.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
    0.014161132 = weight(_text_:systems in 3401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014161132 = score(doc=3401,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.11762045 = fieldWeight in 3401, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3401)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This brief and gentle introduction to some key concepts laid out in the IFLA-produced Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records paper should be read by any librarian wondering what all the "ferber" fuss is about. Scratch that. It should be read by any librarian period. It's time for us to admit our library catalogs are a mess from a user's perspective, and FRBR can provide at least a partial solution to the problems we face in fixing our systems. Therefore, knowledge of the basic concepts that are already beginning to transform our bibliographic systems should be considered basic, foundational, professional knowledge. So start here, if you must, but then feel free to follow up with the full report.

Content

"Catalogers, catalog managers, and others in library technical services have become increasingly interested in, worried over, and excited about FRBR (the acronym for Functional Requirements of Bibliographic Records). Staff outside of the management of the library's bibliographic database may wonder what the fuss is about (FERBER? FURBUR?), assuming that FRBR is just another addition to the stable of acronyms that catalogers bandy about, a mate or sibling to MARC and AACR2. FRBR, however, has the potential to inspire dramatic changes in library catalogs, and those changes will greatly impact how reference and resource sharing staff and patrons use this core tool. FRBR is a conceptual model for how bibliographic databases might be structured, considering what functions bibliographic records should fulfill in an era when card catalogs are databases with unique possibilities. In some ways FRBR clarifies certain cataloging practices that librarians have been using for over 160 years, since Sir Anthony Panizzi, Keeper of the Printed Books at the British Museum, introduced a set of 91 rules to catalog the print collections of the museum. Sir Anthony believed that patrons should be able to find a particular work by looking in the catalog, that all of an author's works should be retrievable, and that all editions of a work should be assembled together. In other ways, FRBR extends upon past practice to take advantage fully of the capabilities of digital technology to associate bibliographic records in ways a card catalog cannot. FRBR was prepared by a study group assembled by IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) that included staff of the Library of Congress (LC). The final report of the group, "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records," is available online. The group began by asking how an online library catalog might better meet users' needs to find, identify, select, and obtain the resources they want.
Better navigation FRBR is a way of explaining the bibliographic world, in a library context, to allow for a better arrangement and collocation of records in a bibliographic database and, consequently, better navigation. FRBR could make possible a catalog that would group all the bibliographic records for all the filmed versions of Romeo and Juliet in sets organized by the language of the production, for example. Within each language's set would be separate subsets for those on DVD and those on videocassette. This would eliminate the screen after screen of displays of bibliographic headings, each of which a user has to investigate to determine if the record is really for the resource he or she needs ("Where's the movie version on DVD?") The larger the size of the database, the more such organization promises cleaner, more navigable displays to searchers. This is why FRBR is especially important in resource sharing environments-where databases seem to grow exponentially. From items to works One of the bases for that organization is FRBR's conception of bibliographic resources, which fall into four "entities": item, manifestation, expression, and work. An "item" is familiar to us: the object that sits on a shelf, which gets checked out, damaged, repaired, then eventually discarded. In the current era, it may not be physical but instead virtual, like an ebook. The "item," an individual copy, is a single example of a "manifestation," the publication by a certain publisher of a text, or of a sound or video recording. Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf, published in hardback by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in 1999, is one manifestation. Heaney's translation of Beowulf published in paperback by W.W. Norton in 2000 is another. Heaney's Beowulf as it appears in the collection Wizards: Stories of Magic, Mischief and Mayhem (Thunder's Mouth, 2001) is yet another manifestation. Manifestations are generally what catalogers catalog. All of these are manifestations of an "expression," a more abstract and intangible entity. Heaney's translation of Beowulf, independent of who is publishing it and when, is one "expression" of that work. The translation by Barry Tharaud is another.
What are these two Beowulf translations "expressions" of? I used the term work above, an even more abstract concept in the FRBR model. In this case, the "work" is Beowulf , that ancient intellectual creation or effort that over time has been expressed in multiple ways, each manifested in several different ways itself, with one or more items in each manifestation. This is a pretty gross oversimplification of FRBR, which also details other relationships: among these entities; between these entities and various persons (such as creators, publishers, and owners); and between these entities and their subjects. It also specifies characteristics, or "attributes," of the different types of entities (such as title, physical media, date, availability, and more.). But it should be enough to grasp the possibilities. Now apply it Imagine that you have a patron who needs a copy of Heaney's translation of Beowulf . She doesn't care who published it or when, only that it's Heaney's translation. What if you (or your patron) could place an interlibrary loan call on that expression, instead of looking through multiple bibliographic records (as of March, OCLC's WorldCat had nine regular print editions) for multiple manifestations and then judging which record is the best bet on which to place a request? Combine that with functionality that lets you specify "not Braille, not large print," and it could save you time. Now imagine a patron in want of a copy, any copy, in English, of Romeo and Juliet. Saving staff time means saving money. Whether or not this actually happens depends upon what the library community decides to do with FRBR. It is not a set of cataloging rules or a system design, but it can influence both. Several library system vendors are working with FRBR ideas; VTLS's current integrated library system product Virtua incorporates FRBR concepts in its design. More vendors may follow. How the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloging Rules develops the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) to incorporate FRBR will necessarily be a strong determinant of how records work in a "FRBR-ized" bibliographic database.
National FRBR experiments The larger the bibliographic database, the greater the effect of "FRBR-like" design in reducing the appearance of duplicate records. LC, RLG, and OCLC, all influenced by FRBR, are experimenting with the redesign of their databases. LC's Network Development and MARC Standards Office has posted at its web site the results of some of its investigations into FRBR and MARC, including possible display options for bibliographic information. The design of RLG's public catalog, RedLightGreen, has been described as "FRBR-ish" by Merrilee Proffitt, RLG's program officer. If you try a search for a prolific author or much-published title in RedLightGreen, you'll probably find that the display of search results is much different than what you would expect. OCLC Research has developed a prototype "frbrized" database for fiction, OCLC FictionFinder. Try a title search for a classic title like Romeo and Juliet and observe that OCLC includes, in the initial display of results (described as "works"), a graphic indicator (stars, ranging from one to five). These show in rough terms how many libraries own the work-Romeo and Juliet clearly gets a five. Indicators like this are something resource sharing staff can consider an "ILL quality rating." If you're intrigued by FRBR's possibilities and what they could mean to resource sharing workflow, start talking. Now is the time to connect with colleagues, your local and/or consortial system vendor, RLG, OCLC, and your professional organizations. Have input into how systems develop in the FRBR world."

0.003633748 = product of:
  0.03270373 = sum of:
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 1562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=1562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1562)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The British Library implemented the new international cataloguing standard RDA in April 2013. The paper describes the reasons for the change, the project organization, the necessary adaptations to the systems and the training programs. Altogether, 227 staff were trained. Productivity levels by now are comparable with the levels for AACR2. However, there was a tendency to spend too much time on authority control.

0.0026033178 = product of:
  0.023429861 = sum of:
    0.023429861 = weight(_text_:of in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023429861 = score(doc=3817,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

Content

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Monash University in 2017 Faculty of Information Technology. Vgl.: https://figshare.com/articles/Models_of_the_bibliographic_universe/5216347.

Imprint

Melbourne : Monash University; Faculty of Information Technology

0.002533309 = product of:
  0.02279978 = sum of:
    0.02279978 = weight(_text_:of in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02279978 = score(doc=2960,freq=58.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.37216315 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
          7.615773 = tf(freq=58.0), with freq of:
            58.0 = termFreq=58.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

0.002489248 = product of:
  0.022403233 = sum of:
    0.022403233 = weight(_text_:of in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022403233 = score(doc=2944,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2944, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2944)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This issue of Jlis.it is focused on RDA, Resource Description and Access. In light of increasing international acceptance of this new cataloging content standard, the editors of Jlis.it wish to capture the background of how RDA came to be and the implications of its implementation at this time. This special issue offers a wide overview on the new guidelines from their making to their spreading around the world.

0.0023521183 = product of:
  0.021169065 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=2958,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The report aims to analyze the applicability of the Resource Description and Access (RDA) within the Italian public libraries, and also in the archives and museums in order to contribute to the discussion at international level. The Central Institute for the Union Catalogue of Italian libraries (ICCU) manages the online catalogue of the Italian libraries and the network of bibliographic services. ICCU has the institutional task of coordinating the cataloging and the documentation activities for the Italian libraries. On March 31 st 2014, the Institute signed the Agreement with the American Library Association,Publishing ALA, for the Italian translation rights of RDA, now available and published inRDAToolkit. The Italian translation has been carried out and realized by the Technical Working Group, made up of the main national and academic libraries, cultural Institutions and bibliographic agencies. The Group started working from the need of studying the new code in its textual detail, to better understand the principles, purposes, and applicability and finally its sustainability within the national context in relation to the area of the bibliographic control. At international level, starting from the publication of the Italian version of RDA and through the research carried out by ICCU and by the national Working Groups, the purpose is a more direct comparison with the experiences of the other European countries, also within EURIG international context, for an exchange of experiences aimed at strengthening the informational content of the data cataloging, with respect to history, cultural traditions and national identities of the different countries.

0.0023403284 = product of:
  0.021062955 = sum of:
    0.021062955 = weight(_text_:of in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021062955 = score(doc=1086,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos

0.0023403284 = product of:
  0.021062955 = sum of:
    0.021062955 = weight(_text_:of in 2947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021062955 = score(doc=2947,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2947, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2947)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The Toolkit designed by the RDA Steering Committee makes Resource Description and Access available on the web, together with other useful documents (workflows, The process of implementation of RDA by Library of Congress, National Agricultural Library, and National Library of Medicine is presented. Each phase of development, test, decision, preparation for implementation of RDA and training about RDA is fully and accurately described and discussed. Benefits from implementation of RDA for the Library of Congress are identified and highlighted: more flexibility in cataloguing decisions, easier international sharing of cataloguing data, clearer linking among related works; closer cooperation with other libraries in the North American community, production of an online learning platform in order to deliver RDA training on a large scale in real time to catalogers.