Search (50 results, page 1 of 3)

0.012628233 = product of:
  0.058931753 = sum of:
    0.033398256 = weight(_text_:wide in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033398256 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.2543695 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.018119143 = weight(_text_:web in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018119143 = score(doc=1271,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.18735787 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.007414355 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007414355 = score(doc=1271,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14252704 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

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.

0.008498167 = product of:
  0.059487164 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=2959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 2959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2959)
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 2959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=2959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2959, 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=2959)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.007436463 = product of:
  0.05205524 = sum of:
    0.044992477 = weight(_text_:wide in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044992477 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5179, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5179)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Issue

Revised after world-wide review. Endorsed by the IFLA Professional Committe.

0.0073218425 = product of:
  0.10250579 = sum of:
    0.10250579 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 3112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10250579 = score(doc=3112,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.7314765 = fieldWeight in 3112, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3112)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Form

Elektronische Dokumente

0.006275865 = product of:
  0.087862104 = sum of:
    0.087862104 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 5401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.087862104 = score(doc=5401,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.6269798 = fieldWeight in 5401, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5401)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Form

Elektronische Dokumente

0.006275865 = product of:
  0.087862104 = sum of:
    0.087862104 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 6805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.087862104 = score(doc=6805,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.6269798 = fieldWeight in 6805, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6805)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Form

Elektronische Dokumente

0.0052298876 = product of:
  0.07321842 = sum of:
    0.07321842 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 6806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07321842 = score(doc=6806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5224832 = fieldWeight in 6806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6806)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Form

Elektronische Dokumente

0.005194202 = product of:
  0.07271883 = sum of:
    0.07271883 = weight(_text_:wide in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07271883 = score(doc=2944,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.5538448 = fieldWeight in 2944, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2944)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0044959965 = product of:
  0.031471975 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 5441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=5441,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5441, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5441)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Ability to collect time-specific lists of faculty publications has become increasingly important for academic departments. At OHSU publication lists had been retrieved manually by a librarian who conducted literature searches in bibliographic databases. These searches were complicated and time consuming, and the results were large and difficult to assess for accuracy. The OHSU library has built an open web page that allows novices to make very sophisticated institution-specific queries. The tool frees up library staff, provides users with an easy way of retrieving reliable local publication information from PubMed, and gives an opportunity for more sophisticated users to modify the algorithm or dive into the data to better understand nuances from a strong jumping off point.

0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2276, 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=2276)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=2276,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2276, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2276)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2459,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2459, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2459)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?

0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2483)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?

0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2484, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2484)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?

0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2485) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2485,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2485, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2485)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?

0.003153452 = product of:
  0.044148326 = sum of:
    0.044148326 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044148326 = score(doc=2486,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36288103 = fieldWeight in 2486, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2486)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

Beitrag anlässlich des FRBR-Workshops für Expertengruppenmitglieder am 8. und 9. Juli 2004 in Der Deutschen Bibliothek mit der Zielsetzung: Die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) haben seit ihrer Veröffentlichung 1998 durch die IFLA die bibliothekarische Diskussion befruchtet. Was verbirgt sich hinter den FRBR? Welche Auswirkungen hat dieses Modell, das Beziehungen zwischen Entitäten darstellt, auf Regelwerke, Normdateien, Formate, Online-Kataloge und andere Bereiche? Welche Erfahrungen sind international bereits mit den FRBR gesammelt worden? Können wir die FRBR in Deutschland und Österreich nutzbringend in die Standardisierungsarbeit einbringen?

0.0031379324 = product of:
  0.043931052 = sum of:
    0.043931052 = weight(_text_:elektronische in 1870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043931052 = score(doc=1870,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14013545 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.3134899 = fieldWeight in 1870, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.728978 = idf(docFreq=1061, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1870)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

ORCID soll die elektronische Zuordnung von Publikation und Autoren ermöglichen. Dies ist notwendig, da verschiedene Autoren gleiche Namen haben können, Namen sich ändern (z. B. bei Heirat) und Namen in verschiedenen Publikationen unterschiedlich angegeben werden (z. B. einmal die ausgeschriebenen Vornamen, ein anderes Mal aber nur die Initialen). ORCID soll zum De-facto-Standard für die Autorenidentifikation wissenschaftlicher Publikationen werden. Die Etablierung wird von der Non-Profit-Organisation Open Researcher Contributor Identification Initiative organisiert. Zu den Gründungsmitgliedern der Initiative gehören zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Verlagsgruppen (z. B. Elsevier, Nature Publishing Group, Springer) und Forschungsorganisationen (z. B. EMBO, CERN). Die Planungen für ORCID wurden 2010 auf Umfragen gestützt. ORCID ging am 16. Oktober 2012 offiziell an den Start. Am Jahresende 2012 hatte ORCID 42.918 Registrierte, Jahresende 2013 waren es 460.000 Registrierte und im November 2014 hatte ORCID 1 Million Autorenidentifikationen ausgestellt. Vgl. auch den Zusammenhang mit der GND und den Erfassungsleitfaden der DNB unter: https://wiki.dnb.de/x/vYYGAw.

0.0028079567 = product of:
  0.019655695 = sum of:
    0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013948122 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.005707573 = weight(_text_:information in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005707573 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

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.

0.002787284 = product of:
  0.039021976 = sum of:
    0.039021976 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039021976 = score(doc=1831,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.32074454 = fieldWeight in 1831, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1831)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

"Fazit: Die Sacherschliessung im Bibliothekskontext richtet sich nach dem Angebot und dem Zugang, den die Bibliothek bietet. Ein Regelwerk muss so gestaltet sein, dass die Bibliothek die Erschliessungstiefe selbst bestimmen kann. Im Datenaustausch macht dann die Übernahme von Fremddaten nur unter ähnlichen Bibliotheken Sinn. Metakataloge können keine sinnvollen Facetten anbieten, hier muss ein Relevanz-Ranking genügen. Dasselbe gilt für die Discovery Tools, in denen Quellen mit verschiedenen Erschliessungssystemen unter einer Oberfläche suchbar gemacht werden. In Kombination mit den Daten der Formalerschliessung sollen hingegen auch bei den Discovery Tools Filter so gestaltet sein, dass in spezifischen Beständen, die intellektuell sachlich erschlossen sind, ein Index der Schlagwörter als Themenfacetten angezeigt und genutzt werden kann. Die RDA wird dafür den Rahmen geben müssen."

0.0027546415 = product of:
  0.03856498 = sum of:
    0.03856498 = weight(_text_:wide in 2881) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03856498 = score(doc=2881,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1312982 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 2881, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2881)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0025691409 = product of:
  0.017983986 = sum of:
    0.013948122 = weight(_text_:web in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013948122 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
    0.0040358636 = weight(_text_:information in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040358636 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This presentation shares the French experience of collaboration between archivists and librarians, led by working groups with the Association française de normalisation (AFNOR). With the arrival of the Web, the various heritage institutions are increasingly aware of their areas of commonality and the need for interoperability between their catalogues. This is particularly true for archives and libraries, which have developed standards for meeting their specific needs Regarding document description, but which are now seeking to establish a dialogue for defining a coherent set of standards to which professionals in both communities can refer. After discussing the characteristics of the collections held respectively in archives and libraries, this presentation will draw a portrait of the standards established by the two professional communities in the following areas: - description of documents - access points in descriptions and authority records - description of functions - identification of conservation institutions and collections It is concluded from this study that the standards developed by libraries on the one hand and by archives on the other are most often complementary and that each professional community is being driven to use the standards developed by the other, or would at least profit from doing so. A dialogue between the two professions is seen today as a necessity for fostering the compatibility and interoperability of standards and documentary tools. Despite this recognition of the need for collaboration, the development of standards is still largely a compartmentalized process, and the fact that normative work is conducted within professional associations is a contributing factor. The French experience shows, however, that it is possible to create working groups where archivists and librarians unite and develop a comprehensive view of the standards and initiatives conducted by each, with the goal of articulating them as best they can for the purpose of interoperability, yet respecting the specific requirements of each.

Content

Beitrag während: World library and information congress: 74th IFLA general conference and council, 10-14 August 2008, Québec, Canada.