Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004478364 = product of:
  0.031348545 = sum of:
    0.02465703 = weight(_text_:web in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465703 = score(doc=2786,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
    0.0066915164 = product of:
      0.020074548 = sum of:
        0.020074548 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020074548 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2786, 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=2786)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This book looks at the ways that we define the things of the bibliographic world, and in particular how our bibliographic models reflect our technology and the assumed goals of libraries. There is, of course, a history behind this, as well as a present and a future. The first part of the book begins by looking at the concept of the 'work' in library cataloging theory, and how that concept has evolved since the mid-nineteenth century to date. Next it talks about models and technology, two areas that need to be understood before taking a long look at where we are today. It then examines the new bibliographic model called Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the technical and social goals that the FRBR Study Group was tasked to address. The FRBR entities are analyzed in some detail. Finally, FRBR as an entity-relation model is compared to a small set of Semantic Web vocabularies that can be seen as variants of the multi-entity bibliographic model that FRBR introduced.

Content

Part I. Work, model, technologyThe work -- The model -- The technology -- Part II. FRBR and other solutions -- Introduction -- FRBR : standard for international sharing -- The entity-relation model -- What is modeled in FRBR -- Does FRBR meet FRBR's objectives? -- Some issues that arise -- Bibliographic description and the Semantic Web.

Date

12. 2.2016 16:22:58

0.0038537113 = product of:
  0.026975978 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 2025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=2025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2025)
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2025)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Evolving from database models using punch cards, strict linear relational databases and predefined object-oriented data structures, the triple statements underlying Semantic Web technologies bypass many design constraints to offer endless flexibility. Overcoming structure is challenging, especially the relatively recent structure formalized in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Though geared to easier access and interoperability and recognizing a multilevel bibliographic model, FRBR remains tied to translating entity-relation diagrams to data structures. Resource Description Framework (RDF) provides a more flexible way to express concepts, in which bibliographic models may be thought of as graphs of properties and relationships. But even RDF-based models can undermine that flexibility by mixing concept classes and data structures. The advantage of RDF classes is to provide semantics that enable a user to focus on similarities, not bound by contextual constraints.and success metrics.

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.30-33

7.6474476E-4 = product of:
  0.010706427 = sum of:
    0.010706427 = product of:
      0.032119278 = sum of:
        0.032119278 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032119278 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=2525,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.