Search (288 results, page 1 of 15)

0.09696904 = product of:
  0.2909071 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
    0.22980681 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22980681 = score(doc=716,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3738479 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6147067 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Since Oliver's guide was first published in 2010, thousands of LIS students, records managers, and catalogers and other library professionals have relied on its clear, plainspoken explanation of RDA: Resource Description and Access as their first step towards becoming acquainted with the cataloging standard. Now, reflecting the changes to RDA after the completion of the 3R Project, Oliver brings her Special Report up to date. This essential primer concisely explains what RDA is, its basic features, and the main factors in its development describes RDA's relationship to the international standards and models that continue to influence its evolution provides an overview of the latest developments, focusing on the impact of the 3R Project, the results of aligning RDA with IFLA's Library Reference Model (LRM), and the outcomes of internationalization illustrates how information is organized in the post 3R Toolkit and explains how to navigate through this new structure; and discusses how RDA continues to enable improved resource discovery both in traditional and new applications, including the linked data environment.

RSWK

Bibliografische Daten / Datenmodell / Katalogisierung / Resource description and access / Theorie

Subject

Bibliografische Daten / Datenmodell / Katalogisierung / Resource description and access / Theorie

0.051462572 = product of:
  0.15438771 = sum of:
    0.12220059 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12220059 = score(doc=2434,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 2434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=2434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2434)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The report from the IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) recommended a new approach to cataloging based on an entity-relationship model. This study examined a single work, The Expedition of Humphry Clinker, to determine benefits and drawbacks associated with creating such an entity-relationship model. Humphry Clinker was selected for several reasons - it has been previously studied, it is widely held, and it is a work of mid-level complexity. In addition to analyzing the bibliographic records, many books were examined to ensure the accuracy of the resulting FRBR model. While it was possible to identify works and manifestations, identifying expressions was problematic. Reliable identification of expressions frequently necessitated the examination of the books themselves. Enhanced manifestation records where the roles of editors, illustrators, translators, and other contributors are explicitly identified may be a viable alternative to expressions. For Humphry Clinker, the enhanced record approach avoids the problem of identifying expressions while providing similar functionality. With the enhanced manifestation record, the three remaining entity-relationship structures - works, manifestations, and items - the FRBR model provides a powerful means to improve bibliographic organization and navigation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.04975329 = product of:
  0.14925987 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=5993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 5993, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5993)
    0.05149939 = weight(_text_:22 in 5993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149939 = score(doc=5993,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5993, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5993)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Article appearing as part of an issue devoted to the theme, Serials Cataloguing: Modern Perspectives and International Developments. Pt.2. In 1988, a revision of AACR2 and a revised edition of the ISBD for serials were published. Discusses and compares the origins of theses 2 standards and their relationship. Describes the inconsistencies between the 2 texts and evaluates their compatibility. Concludes that there is a high degree of compatability on major points but that relatively little progress has been made since the original editions in reducing the substantial number of minor differences

Source

Serials librarian. 22(1992) no.3/4, S.249-262

0.04353413 = product of:
  0.13060239 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
    0.045061965 = weight(_text_:22 in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045061965 = score(doc=7683,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information

Source

OCLC newsletter. 1996, no.220, S.20-22

0.043332785 = product of:
  0.2599967 = sum of:
    0.2599967 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 1747) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2599967 = score(doc=1747,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3738479 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6954612 = fieldWeight in 1747, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1747)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

"Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" bezeichnet ein Datenmodell, welches es ermöglicht bibliographische Datensätze hierarchisch darzustellen. Dazu werden Entitäten definiert, welche untereinander in Verbindung stehen und so die katalogisierten Medien beschreiben. In dieser Arbeit wird das FRBR-Modell in Form einer relationalen Datenbank realisiert. Dazu wird das Programm SQL-Server 2014 genutzt, um es später mit dem linearen Datenbanksystem "Midos6" in Hinblick auf Datenmodulation und daraus resultierende Darstellungsmöglichkeiten zu vergleichen.

0.03791619 = product of:
  0.22749713 = sum of:
    0.22749713 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 1026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.22749713 = score(doc=1026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3738479 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.60852855 = fieldWeight in 1026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1026)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Der neue Katalogisierungsstandard RDA baut grundlegend auf dem Prinzip auf unterschiedliche Publikationsformen in der Erschließung möglichst gleich zu behandeln; er trägt jedoch auch der Tatsache Rechnung, dass für die Beschreibung mitunter sehr spezifische, je nach Publikationstyp unterschiedliche Charakteristika heranzuziehen sind. Die Kombination dieser gegenläufigen Anforderungen mit FRBR, die das zugrundeliegende Datenmodell für die RDA bilden, hat zur Folge, dass Katalogisate hochkomplexe Strukturen sind. Basierend auf den RDA-Elementen wird hier nun ein konzeptuelles Modell angeboten, das die innere Struktur von Katalogisaten systematisiert; zusätzlich dazu und darauf aufbauend lässt sich zudem ein allgemeiner Workflow für die Katalogisierung erstellen.

0.037314966 = product of:
  0.1119449 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=1050,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
    0.03862454 = weight(_text_:22 in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03862454 = score(doc=1050,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.031095807 = product of:
  0.093287416 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=154)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.031095807 = product of:
  0.093287416 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The formal charge for the IFLA study involving international bibliography standards was to delineate the functions that are performed by the bibliographic record with respect to various media, applications, and user needs. The method used was the entity relationship analysis technique. Three groups of entities that are the key objects of interest to users of bibliographic records were defined. The primary group contains four entities: work, expression, manifestation, and item. The second group includes entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content, production, or ownership of entities in the first group. The third group includes entities that represent concepts, objects, events, and places. In the study we identified the attributes associated with each entity and the relationships that are most important to users. The attributes and relationships were mapped to the functional requirements for bibliographic records that were defined in terms of four user tasks: to find, identify, select, and obtain. Basic requirements for national bibliographic records were recommended based on the entity analysis. The recommendations of the study are compared with two standards, AACR (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) and the Dublin Core, to place them into pragmatic context. The results of the study are being used in the review of the complete set of ISBDs as the initial benchmark in determining data elements for each format.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.028802957 = product of:
  0.17281774 = sum of:
    0.17281774 = weight(_text_:relationship in 8920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17281774 = score(doc=8920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.7538686 = fieldWeight in 8920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8920)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.027082993 = product of:
  0.16249795 = sum of:
    0.16249795 = weight(_text_:datenmodell in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16249795 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3738479 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.43466327 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.8682456 = idf(docFreq=45, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Damit die RDA ihren Anspruch, Standard für die Ressourcen aller Kultureinrichtungen zu werden, einlösen können, bedarf es weiterer Entwicklung hin zur größtmöglichen Kompatibilität zu den Dokumentationsanforderungen der anderen Kulturerbe-Sparten. Der Aufsatz liefert drei Diskussionsbeiträge zur Anwendbarkeit und Integration der RDA in den Bereichen Museum und Bildarchiv, Literaturarchiv und Handschriftenerschließung. Kailus zeigt, dass mit den FRBRoo als Harmonisierung von FRBR und CRM bereits ein Datenmodell vorliegt, das das FRBR-Werkkonzept differenziert und eine zentrale Rolle bei der Herstellung der semantischen Interoperabilität von Bibliotheks- und Museumsdaten spielen kann, sodass spartenübergreifende Bestandsrecherchen möglich werden. Basierend auf den Erfahrungen der Arbeitsgruppe zwischen Literaturarchiven und Bibliotheken schlägt Aliverti vor, Implementierungsszenarien für die RDA in Archiven zu erarbeiten. Um Akzeptanz für die Annährung der Standards zu gewinnen, ist die gleichwertige Einbindung aller Partner in die RDA-Gremien wichtig. Fabian möchte die bestehenden Regelwerke zur Katalogisierung mittelalterlicher Handschriften vor dem neuen Standard auf den Prüfstand bringen. Da in der Regel nicht die Handschrift selbst Hauptinformationsquelle ist, sondern die anhand der Vorlage gewonnene Beschreibung, bleibt zu prüfen, inwieweit sich dies in RDA abbilden lässt. Die Autorinnen und Autoren betonen die Wichtigkeit des Einsatzes von Normdaten für die übergreifende Öffnung der Bestände. Neben den Personen und Körperschaften gilt dies besonders für die Referenzierbarkeit der Werkentitäten oder der Sammlungsobjekte selbst.

0.024693392 = product of:
  0.14816035 = sum of:
    0.14816035 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14816035 = score(doc=5579,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6463077 = fieldWeight in 5579, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5579)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Evaluates current research into bibliographic relationships sparked off by B.B. Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (LRTS 35(1991) no.4, S.393-405) and R.P. Smiraglia's taxonomy of the derivative bibliographic relationship (PhD dissertation, Chicago Univ., Graduate Library School, 1992). These researches provide the context for a discussion of recent research and standards work. Reevaluates research on the sequential relationship drawn from work conducted on periodicals and the implications of that research is applied to cataloguing system design. Evaluates the conceptual designs proposed by researchers such as G.H. Leazer and M. Gorman's and uses them in a critique of the USMARC format for bibliographic description

0.02444012 = product of:
  0.14664072 = sum of:
    0.14664072 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14664072 = score(doc=6244,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6396787 = fieldWeight in 6244, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6244)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.02444012 = product of:
  0.14664072 = sum of:
    0.14664072 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14664072 = score(doc=2951,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6396787 = fieldWeight in 2951, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2951)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.024277046 = product of:
  0.14566228 = sum of:
    0.14566228 = weight(_text_:22 in 4362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14566228 = score(doc=4362,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4362, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4362)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:22:27

0.023042366 = product of:
  0.1382542 = sum of:
    0.1382542 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1382542 = score(doc=6686,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6030949 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A bibliographic relationship is an association between two or more bibliographic items or works. In an effort to provide the theoretical base for a conceptual model of the library catalog, past and future, the bibliographic relationship is examined here in detail. In this first of a series of reports, a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships is derived from an analysis of cataloging rules and types of bibliographic items.

0.021165766 = product of:
  0.1269946 = sum of:
    0.1269946 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3078) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1269946 = score(doc=3078,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.553978 = fieldWeight in 3078, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3078)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

With the automation of information systems and with the advent of digital libraries, norms, standards and techniques of library studies have been widely discussed, analyzed, reevaluated and reorganized. In this article the results of doctoral research, in which the Brazilian Metadata Standard for Theses and Dissertations (MTD-BR) was analyzed, is presented. This standard has been utilized in the digital Library of Theses and Dissertations Project, of the Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia, IBICT (Brazilian Institute for Scientific and Technological Information), with the methodology of data modeling, according to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), which is based on the Entity- Relationship Model. It was concluded that new studies should be carried out applying this methodology to other metadata standards, even if they are analyzed with other data modeling tools, such as the object-oriented model, and considering its relationship with the guidelines, principles and instruments of library studies.

0.021165766 = product of:
  0.1269946 = sum of:
    0.1269946 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1269946 = score(doc=2433,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.553978 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.020366766 = product of:
  0.12220059 = sum of:
    0.12220059 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12220059 = score(doc=4069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 4069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4069)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.020366766 = product of:
  0.12220059 = sum of:
    0.12220059 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12220059 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.53306556 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article provides an interpretation of the structure of classification theory literature, from the late 19th Century to the present, by dividing it into four orders, and then describes the relationship between that and manuals for classification design.