Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.027913846 = product of:
  0.111655384 = sum of:
    0.06006652 = weight(_text_:supported in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06006652 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.26173273 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.051588863 = weight(_text_:work in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051588863 = score(doc=2429,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3627123 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.
Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

0.017660242 = product of:
  0.14128193 = sum of:
    0.14128193 = weight(_text_:work in 8920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14128193 = score(doc=8920,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.9933286 = fieldWeight in 8920, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8920)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

A BIBFRAME Relationship is a relationship between a BIBFRAME Work or Instance and another BIBFRAME Work or Instance. Thus there are four types of relationships: Work to Work - Work to Instance - Instance to Work - Instance to Instance

0.015708642 = product of:
  0.06283457 = sum of:
    0.04553114 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04553114 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.19734526 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.017303431 = weight(_text_:work in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017303431 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.1216574 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.012000851 = product of:
  0.09600681 = sum of:
    0.09600681 = weight(_text_:hochschule in 2149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09600681 = score(doc=2149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23689921 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40526438 = fieldWeight in 2149, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.113391 = idf(docFreq=265, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2149)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Content

Beim vorliegenden Beitrag handelt es sich um die erweiterte und aktualisierte Fassung eines Vortrags, der am 5. Dezember 2014 auf dem Symposium "Forschung für die Praxis - Perspektiven für Bibliotheks- und Informationsmanagement" an der Hochschule der Medien in Stuttgart gehalten wurde. Vortragsfolien unter https://www.hdm-stuttgart.de/ bi/symposium/skripte/Wiesenmueller_RDA-Umstieg_Forum1_14-12-05.pdf (10.05.2015). Vgl. auch den Veranstaltungsbericht: Vonhof, Cornelia; Stang, Richard; Wiesenmüller, Heidrun: Forschung für die Praxis - Perspektiven für Bibliotheks- und Informationsmanagement. In: o-bib 2 (2015), H. 1, S. 68-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/2015H1S6. Vgl.: http://dx.doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/2015H2.

0.010093668 = product of:
  0.08074934 = sum of:
    0.08074934 = weight(_text_:work in 4118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08074934 = score(doc=4118,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.56773454 = fieldWeight in 4118, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4118)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.009485654 = product of:
  0.07588523 = sum of:
    0.07588523 = weight(_text_:cooperative in 3996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07588523 = score(doc=3996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23071818 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.32890874 = fieldWeight in 3996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.953884 = idf(docFreq=311, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3996)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Am 14. Februar 2017 ist das neue Release des RDA Toolkits<http://www.rdatoolkit.org/development/February2017release> erschienen. Das Release enthält im englischen Text alle Änderungen aus dem Fast-Track-Verfahren RSC/Sec/6<http://www.rda-rsc.org/sites/all/files/RSC-Sec-6.pdf>. Ebenso enthalten sind die Updates der LC-PCC PS (Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements) und der MLA Best Practices. Neu aufgenommen wurden die Policy Statements der Library and Archives Canada in Kooperation mit der Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec. Diese sind sowohl im Register als auch im Text über ein Icon (dunkel violett) mit den Buchstaben LAC/BAC-BAnQ ansteuerbar. Ab sofort ist es möglich sich auch die Policy Statements in einer zweisprachigen Ansicht anzeigen zu lassen, dazu wurde die Funktion Select Language und Dual View in der Symbolliste unter dem Reiter "Ressourcen" eingefügt. Im deutschen Text wurden ausschließlich Änderungen an den Anwendungsrichtlinien für den deutschsprachigen Raum (D-A-CH) eingearbeitet. Die dazugehörige Übersicht (Kurz- bzw. Langversion) finden Sie im RDA-Info-Wiki<https://wiki.dnb.de/x/1hLSBg>. Mitte April 2017 wird das nächste Release des RDA Toolkit erscheinen, eingearbeitet werden die verabschiedeten Proposals, die im November 2016 vom RDA Steering Committee (RSC) beschlossen wurden. Die Umsetzung der Änderungen in der deutschen Übersetzung aus den Fast-Track-Dokumenten RSC/Sec/4 und RSC/Sec/5 und RSC/Sec/6 sind für den August 2017 geplant.

0.009119708 = product of:
  0.072957665 = sum of:
    0.072957665 = weight(_text_:work in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072957665 = score(doc=1183,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.5129526 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.008156915 = product of:
  0.06525532 = sum of:
    0.06525532 = weight(_text_:work in 1660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06525532 = score(doc=1660,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.4587988 = fieldWeight in 1660, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1660)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.007137301 = product of:
  0.057098407 = sum of:
    0.057098407 = weight(_text_:work in 2432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057098407 = score(doc=2432,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.40144894 = fieldWeight in 2432, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2432)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=700,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This is a presentation on the new version of the ISBD. It is new because the structure has been changed, integrating the description of all types of resources covered in the specialized ISBDs into one ISBD. At the same time, requirements for the description of all resources have been updated to bring the description of all materials to the same state of conformity with FRBR. We shall give a short history of the background of the ISBD Review Group's work and discuss the reasons why the group considered this revision necessary. Then we shall describe the procedures followed in the work on consolidation and the most problematic issues encountered, so it will be clear what is not included in this first edition. Finally we shall explain our intention of further revision and updating in the near future.

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=2276,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

WorldCat records are clustered into works, and within works, into content and manifestation clusters. A recent project revisited the clustering of collected works that had been previously sidelined because of the challenges posed by their complexity. Attention was given to both the identification of collected works and to the determination of the component works within them. By extensively analysing cast-list information, performance notes, contents notes, titles, uniform titles and added entries, the contents of collected works could be identified and differentiated so that correct clustering was achieved. Further work is envisaged in the form of refining the tests and weights and also in the creation and use of name/title authority records and other knowledge cards in clustering. There is a requirement to link collected works with their component works for use in search and retrieval.

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=2433,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 2624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=2624,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 2624, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2624)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The article presents the work of Elaine Svenonius The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization, translated in Italian and published by Le Lettere of Florence, within the series Pinakes, with the title Il fondamento intellettuale dell'organizzazione dell'informazione. The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization defines the theoretical aspects of library science, its philosophical basics and principles, the purposes that must be kept in mind, abstracting from the technology used in a library. The book deals with information organization and bibliographic universe, in particular using the bibliographic entities defined in FRBR, at first. Then, it analyzes all the specific languages by which works and subjects are treated. This work, already acknowledged as a classic, organizes, synthesizes and make easily understood the whole complex of knowledge, practices and procedures developed in the last 150 years.

0.0061176866 = product of:
  0.048941493 = sum of:
    0.048941493 = weight(_text_:work in 2954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048941493 = score(doc=2954,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.3440991 = fieldWeight in 2954, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2954)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The library community in Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland achieved a common goal at the end of 2015. After more than two years of intensive preparation, the international standard RDA was implemented and the practical work has now started. The article describes the project in terms of the political and organizational situation in the three countries, and points out the objectives which have been achieved as well as the work which is still outstanding. An overview is given of the initial efforts to align special materials with RDA in the German-speaking countries, and the tasks associated with the specific requirements arising from the multilingual nature of Switzerland are described. Furthermore, the article reports on the current strategic developments in the international RDA committees like the RDA Steering Committee (RSC) and the European RDA Interest Group (EURIG).

0.005098072 = product of:
  0.040784575 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=3225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.

0.005098072 = product of:
  0.040784575 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=3875,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=2430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.005046834 = product of:
  0.04037467 = sum of:
    0.04037467 = weight(_text_:work in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037467 = score(doc=711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28386727 = fieldWeight in 711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=711)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 2625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=2625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 2625, 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=2625)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The article aims to provide an update on the 2009 Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) and on the status of work on the Statement by the IFLA Cataloguing Section. The article begins with a summary of the drafting process of the ICP by the IME ICC, International Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, focusing in particular on the first meeting (IME ICC1) and on the earlier drafts of the 2009 Statement. It then analyzes both the major innovations and the unsatisfactory aspects of the ICP. Finally, it explains and comments on the recent documents by the IFLA Cataloguing Section relating to the ICP, which express their intention to revise the Statement and to verify the convenience of drawing up an international cataloguing code. The latter intention is considered in detail and criticized by the author in the light of the recent publication of the RDA, Resource Description and Access. The article is complemented by an updated bibliography on the ICP.

0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 2951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=2951,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 2951, 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=2951)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article attempts to clarify the nature of the relationship between the RDA and ISBD standards in order to be able to understand their differences and vinculations, as well as to remove some misinterpretations about this relationship. With this objective, some aspects that can affect their differences, such as types of standards, points of view, scope, origin, policies of the creation and development group or organization in charge that logically justify these differences, are analyzed. These have not presented any obstacles for a correct relationship with the help of the Linked Data technology. In this article, account is also given of the work done of mappings and alignments between the standards in order to contribute properly to the Semantic Web. This knowledge is the one fundamental required for current catalogers to use standards judiciously, knowledgeably and responsibly.