Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12165199 = product of:
  0.18247798 = sum of:
    0.07207332 = weight(_text_:im in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07207332 = score(doc=4421,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.49970993 = fieldWeight in 4421, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4421)
    0.11040466 = product of:
      0.16560699 = sum of:
        0.0830764 = weight(_text_:online in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0830764 = score(doc=4421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.5364998 = fieldWeight in 4421, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4421)
        0.08253059 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08253059 = score(doc=4421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.5347345 = fieldWeight in 4421, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4421)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.091239 = product of:
  0.1368585 = sum of:
    0.054054987 = weight(_text_:im in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054054987 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.37478244 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
    0.0828035 = product of:
      0.12420525 = sum of:
        0.062307306 = weight(_text_:online in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062307306 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40237486 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
        0.06189794 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06189794 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.01300361 = product of:
  0.03901083 = sum of:
    0.03901083 = weight(_text_:im in 466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03901083 = score(doc=466,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.27047595 = fieldWeight in 466, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=466)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Die Expertengruppe MAB-Ausschuss (seit 2005: Expertengruppe Datenformate) hat sich im Verlauf des Jahres 2004 mit den FRBR und ihren Bezügen zum MABFormat befasst. Es wurde eine Tabelle FRBR => MAB erstellt (veröffentlicht unter http://www.ddb.de/professionell/pdf/frbr_mab.pdf), wichtige Ergebnisse wurden im Artikel "Maschinelles Austauschformat für Bibliotheken und die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records : Oder: Wieviel FRBR verträgt MAB?" im "Bibliotheksdienst" 39 (2005), Heft 10 zusammengefasst. Ergänzend dazu wurde bei der Arbeitsstelle Datenformate Der Deutschen Bibliothek versucht, MAB-Daten zu "frbrisieren", d. h. einzelne MAB-Datensätze in die vier Entitäten der Gruppe 1 (work / expression / manifestation / item) zu differenzieren. Ziel war nicht, einen fertigen OPAC-Baustein für die Indexierung, Benutzerführung oder Präsentation zu erstellen. Ziel war vielmehr, anhand von konkreten, in MAB strukturierten Daten die Schichten sichtbar zu machen. Ausgewählt für diesen Zweck wurde BISMAS, das "Bibliographische Informations-System zur Maschinellen Ausgabe und Suche" des BIS Oldenburg (www.bismas.de). In BISMAS ist es mit relativ geringem Aufwand möglich, die Präsentation eines Satzes - basierend auf der intern vorliegenden Datensatzstruktur, z.B. MAB - frei zu definieren. Die Gestaltung der Indices und der Ausgabeformate erfolgt in BISMAS mit Hilfe der Programmiersprache LM. Die Ergebnisse sollen hier anhand von Beispielen dargestellt werden.

0.009009165 = product of:
  0.027027493 = sum of:
    0.027027493 = weight(_text_:im in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027027493 = score(doc=3967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.18739122 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vortrag im Rahmen der Session 93. Cataloguing der WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 76TH IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND ASSEMBLY, 10-15 August 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden - 149. Information Technology, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing with Knowledge Management

0.009009165 = product of:
  0.027027493 = sum of:
    0.027027493 = weight(_text_:im in 3732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027027493 = score(doc=3732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.18739122 = fieldWeight in 3732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3732)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Seit einiger Zeit stellen Bibliotheken ihre bibliografischen Metadadaten verstärkt offen in Form von Linked Data zur Verfügung. Dabei kommen jedoch ganz unterschiedliche Modelle für die Strukturierung der bibliografischen Daten zur Anwendung. Manche Bibliotheken verwenden ein auf FRBR basierendes Modell mit mehreren Schichten von Entitäten, während andere flache, am Datensatz orientierte Modelle nutzen. Der Wildwuchs bei den Datenmodellen erschwert die Nachnutzung der bibliografischen Daten. Im Ergebnis haben die Bibliotheken die früheren MARC-Silos nur mit zueinander inkompatiblen Linked-Data-Silos vertauscht. Deshalb ist es häufig schwierig, Datensets miteinander zu kombinieren und nachzunutzen. Kleinere Unterschiede in der Datenmodellierung lassen sich zwar durch Schema Mappings in den Griff bekommen, doch erscheint es fraglich, ob die Interoperabilität insgesamt zugenommen hat. Der Beitrag stellt die Ergebnisse einer Studie zu verschiedenen veröffentlichten Sets von bibliografischen Daten vor. Dabei werden auch die unterschiedlichen Modelle betrachtet, um bibliografische Daten als RDF darzustellen, sowie Werkzeuge zur Erzeugung von entsprechenden Daten aus dem MARC-Format. Abschließend wird der von der Finnischen Nationalbibliothek verfolgte Ansatz behandelt.

0.007861916 = product of:
  0.023585748 = sum of:
    0.023585748 = product of:
      0.03537862 = sum of:
        0.022483215 = weight(_text_:online in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022483215 = score(doc=1166,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.14519453 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
        0.012895404 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012895404 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.00499627 = product of:
  0.01498881 = sum of:
    0.01498881 = product of:
      0.04496643 = sum of:
        0.04496643 = weight(_text_:online in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04496643 = score(doc=133,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.29038906 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper describes an experiment exploring the hypothesis that innovative application of the Functional Require-ments for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) principles can complement traditional bibliographic resource discovery systems in order to improve the user experience. A specialized service was implemented that, when given a plain list of results from a regular online catalogue, was able to process, enrich and present that list in a more relevant way for the user. This service pre-processes the records of a traditional online catalogue in order to build a semantic structure following the FRBR model. The service also explores web search features that have been revolutionizing the way users conceptualize resource discovery, such as relevance ranking and metasearching. This work was developed in the context of the TELPlus project. We processed nearly one hundred thousand bibliographic and authority records, in multiple languages, and originating from twelve European na-tional libraries. This paper describes the architecture of the service and the main challenges faced, especially concerning the extraction and linking of the relevant FRBR entities from the bibliographic metadata produced by the libraries. The service was evaluated by end users, who filled out a questionnaire after using a traditional online catalogue and the new service, both with the same bibliographic collection. The analysis of the results supports the hypothesis that FRBR can be implemented for re-source discovery in a non-intrusive way, reusing the data of any existing traditional bibliographic system.

0.0028845975 = product of:
  0.008653793 = sum of:
    0.008653793 = product of:
      0.025961377 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 763, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=763)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl. Kommentar Eversberg: Wer dranbleiben will am Puls der Zeit und speziell an der sich dynamisierenden Evolution eines neuen Datenformatkonzepts, der sollte sich langsam beeilen, sich mit BIBFRAME vertraut zu machen: http://bibframe.org Diese Startseite organisiert nun den Zugang zu allem, was schon vorliegt und präsentabel ist, und das ist allerhand. Wer erst mal nur schnuppern will und schauen, wie denn BIBFRAME-Daten wohl aussehen, gehe zur "demonstration area", wo man u.a. auch aufbereitete Daten der DNB findet. Es gibt ferner Online Tools, und darunter einen "Transformation service", dem man eigenes MARC-XML übergeben kann, damit er was draus mache. [Exporte mit unserem MARCXML.APR klappen nicht unmittelbar, man muß zumindest die in der Datei schon vorhandenen zwei Kopfzeilen aktivieren und ans Ende noch </collection> setzen. Und hierarchische Daten machen noch Probleme, die wir uns vornehmen müssen.] Wer jetzt denkt, "Was geht uns das alles an?", der lese die letzte Zeile, die da lautet: "BIBFRAME.ORG is a collaborative effort of US Library of Congress, Zepheira and you!"