Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012589371 = product of:
  0.050357483 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=1050,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=1050,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

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

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.008741372 = product of:
  0.06993098 = sum of:
    0.06993098 = weight(_text_:work in 4383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06993098 = score(doc=4383,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.49167252 = fieldWeight in 4383, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4383)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

To investigate the extent to which online catalogs arrange together, or collocate, records representing particular authors and works, a survey compared the displays resulting from 5 author and 5 work queries in 18 online catalogs. Dependent variables to measure collocation included the number of items irrelevant records were interfiled among relevant records. Searches for worst-case authors and works associated with large retrieval sets, including 'Homer' and 'Paradise lost', revealed the effects of Boolean versus string matching, query type, and catalog size on the collocation of relevant records. Results of the survey showed that string matching collocated relevant records more successfully than Boolean matching, that author records were collocated more successfully than work records, and, surprisingly, that catalog size had only a small effect on collocation

0.008741372 = product of:
  0.06993098 = sum of:
    0.06993098 = weight(_text_:work in 799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06993098 = score(doc=799,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.49167252 = fieldWeight in 799, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=799)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

In current cataloging practice, the identification of an item as a member of a particular work set is accomplished by assigning a main entry heading, or main entry citation, in the bibliographic record representing that item. The main entry citation is normally comprised of a primary author name and the uniform title associated with the work. However, the quality of bibliographic records varies, and this means of identification is not universally used by catalogers. Thus, consistent identification and retrieval of records representing editions of works is not guaranteed. Research is reported that investigates the extent to which records that are members of a particular work set may be automatically identified as such.

0.007492605 = product of:
  0.05994084 = sum of:
    0.05994084 = weight(_text_:work in 4612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05994084 = score(doc=4612,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4214336 = fieldWeight in 4612, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4612)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper examines a user categorisation of documents related to a particular literary work. 50 study participants completed an unconstrained sorting rask of documents related to Charles Dickens' 'A christmas carol'. After they had finished the sorting task, participants wrote desriptions of the attributes they used to create each group. Content analysis of theses descriptions revealed categories of attributes used for grouping. Participants used physical format, audience, content description, pictorial elements, usage, and language most frequently for grouping. Many of the attributes participants used for grouping already exist in bibliographic records and may be used to cluster records related to works automatically in online catalogue displays. The attributes used by people in classifying or grouping documents related to a work may be used to guide the design of summary online catalogue work displays

0.006243838 = product of:
  0.049950704 = sum of:
    0.049950704 = weight(_text_:work in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049950704 = score(doc=908,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.35119468 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The 2nd objective of the catalogue, adopted internationally in the Paris Principles, requires that cataloguing records for particular authors and particular works be easily identified (IFLA 1991). Analysis of the requirements of the 2nd objective of the catalogue shows that it has 2 components: a retrieval component; and a display component; and that it may be interpreted broadly to include related works and works about a work or author. Investigates 2 schemes for their contributions to the creation of online catalogue displays that meet 2nd objective requirements. Analyzes the catalogue filing rule scheme to show that author and work displays in card catalogues have been composed of many groups or classes of materials that may also be used to create organized displays in online catalogues. The groups used in the filing rule scheme are based on relationships among items. Proposes a scheme based on Tillet's bibliographic relationship taxonomy to discover additional types of relationships that may be used to group record in online catalogue displays leading to a new scheme for the creation of organized display in online catalogues. Incorporates elements from both the filing rule scheme and the bibliographic relationship taxonomy to create displays that meet the requirements of the 2nd objective more fully than either scheme does alone

0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=100)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Displays grouping retrieved bibliographic record sets into categories or clusters may communicate search results more quickly and effectively to users than current catalogs providing long alphabetical lists of records. In this research, automatic clustering based on types of relationships, including translation, presence of illustrations, etc., is proposed as a model for clustering. Bibliographic records associated with three large fiction works (Kidnapped by Robert Lewis Stevenson, Bleak House by Charles Dickens, and Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas) are analyzed to discover the presence of relationship-type indicators to determine the extent to which an automatic clustering program would succeed in clustering work records. Preliminary results show that 94 percent of the records in this study contained indicators of cluster type that would allow them to be correctly identified automatically