Do we need to change? Do we want to change?: The future of bibliographic information systems

Maja Žumer

Abstrakt


For the first time in their long history libraries are facing competition. There are many different information providers and users find information elsewhere. The clear advantages of the library catalogue, such as authority control, consistency and the wealth of information are obviously not utilised to their potential. A step further is therefore urgently needed. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) provides a new paradigm which could not only enable more intuitive presentation of bibliographic information, but also open this information using Semantic Web tools and services and therefore promote exchange and reuse across domains. Several current research activities are presented. They all pave the way to better bibliographic information systems, which should be developed without further delay.

 

Poprvé ve své dlouhé historii čelí knihovny konkurenci. Existuje mnoho dalších poskytovatelů informací a uživatelé si vyhledávají informace kdekoliv. I přes to, že knihovní katalogy mají výhodu v tom, že jsou kontrolované, konzistentní a bohaté na informace, zdá se, že nevyužívají svého plného potenciálu. Proto je nutné se v této oblasti posunout dále. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) představuje nové paradigma, které by nejen mohlo nabídnout mnohem intuitivnější poskytování bibliografických informací, ale též využívat nástrojů a služeb sémantického webu. V článku jsou představeny některé současné výzkumné aktivity, které otevírají cestu k lepším bibliografickým informačním systémům, které by měly být předmětem dalšího zkoumání.

 

Maja Žumer

University of Ljubljana Slovenia


Klíčová slova


Semantic Web, library catalogues, information systems, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), bibliographic data

Full Text:

PDF (English)

Reference

Zobrazit literaturu Skrýt literaturu

  1. FRBRoo; Object-oriented definition and mapping to FRBRer (version 1.0.1, January 2010) (2010). http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/frbr_oo/frbr_docs/FRBRoo_V1.0.1.pdf
  2. Hegna, K. and Murtomaa, E. (2002). Data mining MARC to find: FRBR?. http://folk.uio.no/knuthe/dok/frbr/datamining.pdf
  3. Hickey, T. and O'Neill, E. (2005). FRBRizing OCLC's WorldCat. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 39 (3/4), 239-251. | DOI 10.1300/J104v39n03_15
  4. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998). Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: final report. Munich, Germany: KG Saur
  5. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records. (2009). Functional Requirements for Authority Data: a conceptual model. Munich, Germany: KG Saur.
  6. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Working Group on Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records. (2010). Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD): a conceptual model. June 2010. http://www.ifla.org/files/classification-and-indexing/functional-requirements-for-subject-authority-data/frsad-final-report.pdf
  7. Leskovec, M. (2005). Delo, izrazna oblika, pojavna oblika : kaj uporabniki res iščejo? (Work, expression, manifestation: what are user really looking for). BS thesis. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta.
  8. Library of Congress. Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. (2008). On the record: report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control. http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-final.pdf
  9. Madison, O. (2005). The origins of the IFLA study on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. 39 (3/4). 15-37.
  10. | DOI 10.1300/J104v39n03_02

  11. Pisanski, J. and Žumer, M. (2010a). Mental models of the bibliographic universe. Part 1: Mental models of descriptions. Journal of Documentation, 66 (5), 643-667 | DOI 10.1108/00220411011066772
  12. Pisanski, J. and Žumer, M. (2010b). Mental models of the bibliographic universe. Part 2: Comparison task and conclusions. Journal of Documentation, 66 (5), 668-680 | DOI 10.1108/00220411011066781
  13. Pisanski, J., Žumer, M. and Aalberg, T. (2009). Frbrisation: towards a bright new future for national bibliographies. World Library and Information Congress: 75th IFLA General Conference and Council, 23-27 August 2009, Milan, Italy. http://www.ifla.org/files/hq/papers/ifla75/77-pisanski-en.pdf
  14. Pisanski, J., Žumer, M. and Aalberg, T. (2010). Identifiers: bridging language barriers. World Library and Information Congress: 76th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, 10-15 August 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden. http://www.ifla.org/files/hq/papers/ifla76/93-pisanski-en.pdf
  15. Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control (2008). On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control.. Retrieved 19.1.2009 from: http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/news/lcwg-ontherecord-jan08-fina....
  16. Zhang, Y. and Salaba, A. (2007). Critical issues and challenges facing FRBR research and practice. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 33 (6), 30-31. | DOI 10.1002/bult.2007.1720330609
  17. Zhang, Y. and Salaba, A. (2009). What is next for FRBR? A Delphi study. The Library Quarterly, 79 (2), 233-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/597078