Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04900819 = product of:
  0.073512286 = sum of:
    0.03901083 = weight(_text_:im in 4001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03901083 = score(doc=4001,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.27047595 = fieldWeight in 4001, 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=4001)
    0.03450146 = product of:
      0.051752187 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 4001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=4001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4001, 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=4001)
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=4001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 4001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4001)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Das Exzellenzcluster Kognitive Interaktionstechnologie (CITEC) an der Universität Bielefeld beschäftigt sich seit 2013 mit der virtuellen Realität (VR). Ausgehend von konkreten Projektkooperationen (Publikations- und Forschungsdatenmanagement) mit der Universitätsbibliothek ist die Idee entstanden, mit der in 2016 neu angebotenen Konsumer-VR-Hardware die im Labor entwickelten Interaktionstechniken auf geeignete Szenarien im Bereich von bibliothekarischen Umgebungen anzuwenden. Als interessantes Anwendungsgebiet kristallisierte sich im gemeinsamen Diskurs die Literatursuche heraus: Als Suchsystem wurde die Bielefelder BASE-Datenbank (d.i. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine mit inzwischen mehr als 100 Mio. indexierten Dokumenten) ausgewählt. Diese Auswahl erfolgte vor dem Hintergrund, dass sich die von zahlreichen externen Institutionen bereits genutzte API-Schnittstelle als universell und robust erwiesen hat und umfangreiche Funktionen bereitstellt. Auf der Grundlage der umfangreichen theoretischen und praktischen Erfahrungen des CITEC mit VRTechniken wurde der Prototyp für eine virtuelle Suchumgebung realisiert, der ein Retrieval in einem Suchraum von Online-Dokumenten erlaubt. Die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer können die Suchanfrage explorativ zusammenstellen und dabei die Ergebnisse intuitiv verwalten. Unterstützt werden sie dabei durch Ergebnisanzeige, Sortierung, Optimierung des Suchergebnisses mittels Suchverfeinerung (Drilldown-basiert) oder Anfrageerweiterung und Wiederverwendung von abgelegten Ergebnissen. Gleichzeitig wird der Zugriff- und Lizenzstatus visualisiert und die Detailanzeige der Metadaten des Objektes integriert.

0.01801833 = product of:
  0.054054987 = sum of:
    0.054054987 = weight(_text_:im in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054054987 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.37478244 = fieldWeight in 3113, 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=3113)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Sinn von Katalogen und Erschließung im Umfeld der Debatte RAK - AACR, MAB - MARC

0.016649358 = product of:
  0.049948074 = sum of:
    0.049948074 = product of:
      0.07492211 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
        0.043768454 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043768454 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.

0.01300361 = product of:
  0.03901083 = sum of:
    0.03901083 = weight(_text_:im in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03901083 = score(doc=1831,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.27047595 = fieldWeight in 1831, 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=1831)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Die Resource Description and Access (RDA) wird für den deutschsprachigen Raum das neue Regelwerk für die bibliothekarische Erschliessung der Bestände. In diesem Regelwerk wird auch die Sacherschliessung neu geregelt. Zurzeit sind diese Seiten noch leer. Doch wie soll ein Regelwerk für die Sacherschliessung aussehen? Kriterien für eine Regelung fehlen, zu stark hat sich das Umfeld der Inhaltserschliessung in den letzten Jahren geändert. Auch von der Schlagworttheorie her sind noch keine Hinweise in Sicht. Deshalb wird in verschiedenen Gremien intensiv diskutiert, wie eine zukunftsfähige Sacherschliessung aussehen könnte. In welchem Rahmen bewegt sich die Diskussion und woran soll sich die Regelwerksentwicklung für den Sachkatalog orientieren? Der Beitrag erwägt zwischen der Sachkataloggeschichte einerseits und dem modernen Datenmanagement im Netz andererseits die Bedeutung und die Rolle eines Sacherschliessungsregelwerks.
"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."

0.01201222 = product of:
  0.03603666 = sum of:
    0.03603666 = weight(_text_:im in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03603666 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.24985497 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Bachelor-Arbeit im Studiengang Bibliotheks- und Informationsmanagement an der Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart.

0.009200389 = product of:
  0.027601166 = sum of:
    0.027601166 = product of:
      0.041401748 = sum of:
        0.0207691 = weight(_text_:online in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0207691 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.13412495 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
        0.020632647 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020632647 = score(doc=5013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.007507637 = product of:
  0.022522911 = sum of:
    0.022522911 = weight(_text_:im in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022522911 = score(doc=2480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.15615936 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Die E-LIB der SuUB Bremen arbeitet bereits seit 2004 als einheitlicher Katalog elektronischer und gedruckter Medien auf Basis von selbst entwickelter Suchmaschinentechnologie. Alle wesentlichen Medien und Dienste der Bibliothek werden unter einer Suchoberfläche angeboten, um die übliche heterogene Nachweissituation der verschiedenen Medientypen soweit wie möglich aufzulösen. Das Projekt verfolgt das Ziel, alle lokalen Bestände vor Ort und alle für Bremer Nutzer im Zugriff extern verfügbaren Medien in einem einzigen Retrievalsystem zur Verfügung zu stellen und neu entwickelte Verfahren zur Unterstützung von assoziativen Suchprozessen anzubieten. In dem von der Bibliothek kontrollierten Suchraum der Bremer E-LIB finden sich derzeit ca. 60 Mio. Nachweise - zu über 90% elektronische Volltexte.

0.007507637 = product of:
  0.022522911 = sum of:
    0.022522911 = weight(_text_:im in 4601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022522911 = score(doc=4601,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1442303 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051022716 = queryNorm
        0.15615936 = fieldWeight in 4601, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4601)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) verfolgt das Ziel, den unter Culturegraph.org verfügbaren großen Datenbestand von mehr als 160 Millionen Titeldaten deutschsprachiger Bibliotheksverbünde sowie der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek und der British National Bibliography über Analysen, Verknüpfungen und Auswertungen in größerem Umfang nutzbar zu machen. Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick, welche Themenstellungen und Methoden bislang im Zentrum stehen. Dies ist einerseits die Bündelung von Werken, die erlaubt, mehrere Ausgaben, Auflagen oder Übersetzungen eines Werks zusammenzuführen. Inhaltserschließende Informationen wie Klassifikation oder verbale Erschließung, ebenso wie Normdatenverknüpfungen, können so auf alle Mitglieder eines Bündels übertragen werden, so dass ein Gewinn an Standardisierung und Erschließungstiefe zu erreichen ist. Andererseits können über bibliothekarische Daten hinaus auch externe Datenquellen zur Anreicherung herangezogen werden. Dies wird anhand eines Abgleichs von Personen in der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) und der Datenbank Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) dargestellt. Unter Verwendung der Culturegraph-Titeldaten werden Personen mittels der von ihnen verfassten Publikationen abgeglichen und zusammengeführt. Abschließend werden einige statistische Auswertungen des Datenbestandes vorgestellt.

0.006994778 = product of:
  0.020984333 = sum of:
    0.020984333 = product of:
      0.062952995 = sum of:
        0.062952995 = weight(_text_:online in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062952995 = score(doc=1172,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.4065447 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This think piece tells why the online library catalog fell from grace and why new directions pertaining to cataloging simplification and primary sources will not attract people back to the online catalog. It proposes an alternative direction that has greater likelihood of regaining the online catalog's lofty status and longtime users. Such a direction will require paradigm shifts in library cataloging and in the design and development of online library catalogs that heed catalog users' longtime demands for improvements to the searching experience. Our failure to respond accordingly may permanently exile scholarly and scientific information to a netherworld where no one searches while less reliable, accurate, and objective sources of information thrive in a paradise where people prefer to search for information.
The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.004038437 = product of:
  0.01211531 = sum of:
    0.01211531 = product of:
      0.03634593 = sum of:
        0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03634593 = score(doc=3817,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.

0.003997016 = product of:
  0.011991048 = sum of:
    0.011991048 = product of:
      0.035973143 = sum of:
        0.035973143 = weight(_text_:online in 4426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035973143 = score(doc=4426,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23231125 = fieldWeight in 4426, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4426)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Wissen Sie, wie sich zukünftig Bibliografien, Kataloge und OPACs bedienen lassen? Wenn wir über die Zukunft von Bibliografien, Katalogen und OPACs nachdenken, denken wir dann zunächst an Medien verzeichnisse oder an offene, kommunikative Webportale, die es jedem ermöglichen, sich nach Art des Web 2.0 an der Erfassung der bibliografischen Daten zu beteiligen? Wenn wir mediale Internet angebote des Web 2.0 genauer betrachtet, bieten diese meh als lediglich die Verzeichnung von Medien. Es zeigt sich, dass angesichts aktueller Entwicklungen in Richtung Web 2.0 die Frage neu gestellt werden sollte, in welcher Form zukünftig mediografische Portale ihren Nutzen haben könnten. Beispielsweise könnte ein OPAC 2.0 jedem Interessenten einen individuellen Zugang zu einem Informationsraum offerieren, der sich funktionell ganz den eigenen Bedürfnissen und Wünschen des Bibliotheksnutzers anpasst und nicht nur Zugang zu Informationen ermöglicht, sondern auch vollmedialen Zugriff, inhaltliche Verweisfunktionen, erweiterten Service sowie Kommunikationsfunktionen. Die Antwort lautet also, dass Archive und Bibliotheken mehr über mediografische Portale nachden ken sollten und nicht über Bibliografien, Kataloge und OPACs! Eine darauf folgend wichtige Frage ist, ob diese Portale sowohl inhaltlich als auch funktionell nicht nur unseren Archiv und Bibliotheksnutzern mehr Service bieten, sondern auch einen höheren Zweck für Archive und Bibliotheken selbst darstellen? Die Online Techniken des Web 2.0 und dessen Portale offerieren virtuelle Welten und neue Möglichkeiten zum Aktiv und Produktivsein, also insgesamt zum Proaktivsein unserer Nutzer. Die Betrachtung solcher Internetangebote zeigt, dass sich mediografische Angebote bereits in einer Entwicklung befinden. Doch wenn es eine solche Entwicklung gibt, muss überlegt werden, wie Archive und Bibliotheken sich hierbei einbringen können. Somit zeichnet sich bei diesem Thema eine Brisanz ab. Denn zu bedenken ist, dass mediografische Daten bereits in Rechercheergebnissen bei Online-Datenbanken, Internet Suchmaschinen, Online Enzyklopädien oder anderen Angeboten eine Rolle spielen.

0.0034615172 = product of:
  0.010384551 = sum of:
    0.010384551 = product of:
      0.031153653 = sum of:
        0.031153653 = weight(_text_:online in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031153653 = score(doc=4105,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Drawings of The Florentine Painters project created the first online database of Florentine Renaissance drawings by applying Linked Open Data (LOD) techniques to a foundational text of the same name, first published by Bernard Berenson in 1903 (revised and expanded editions, 1938 and 1961). The goal was to make Berenson's catalog information-still an essential information resource today-available in a machine-readable format, allowing researchers to access the source content through open data services. This paper provides a technical overview of the methods and processes applied in the conversion of Berenson's catalog to LOD using the CIDOC-CRM ontology; it also discusses the different phases of the project, focusing on the challenges and issues of data transformation and publishing. The project was funded by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and organized by Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Catalog: http://florentinedrawings.itatti.harvard.edu. Data Endpoint: http://data.itatti.harvard.edu.

0.0032635499 = product of:
  0.00979065 = sum of:
    0.00979065 = product of:
      0.029371947 = sum of:
        0.029371947 = weight(_text_:online in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029371947 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.18968134 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0028845975 = product of:
  0.008653793 = sum of:
    0.008653793 = product of:
      0.025961377 = sum of:
        0.025961377 = weight(_text_:online in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025961377 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3225, 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=3225)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.