MSc ILS, Organisation of Knowledge, Exam Prep - 15th May 2013

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
MSc ILS, Organisation of Knowledge, Exam Prep - 15th May 2013 by Mind Map: MSc ILS, Organisation of Knowledge, Exam Prep - 15th May 2013

1. ToC, Full Text Search, and BoBI

1.1. ToC

1.1.1. Exists at the beginning of a document. Represents the logical development of the document, with at least level one chapter headings.

1.1.2. Strengths

1.1.2.1. Easy to scan or browse to assess general relevance and breadth.

1.1.2.2. In an eBook it can be hyperlinked to the relevant section of text.

1.1.3. Weaknesses

1.1.3.1. Non alphabetical

1.1.3.2. Still requires the reader to unpack sizeable blocks of text to assess relevance fully

1.2. Full Text Search

1.2.1. An inverted file of all instances of a term at document, paragraph, and sentence level. Supported by functions for combinations of terms (Boolean), proximity of terms, and limiting of terms

1.2.2. Strengths

1.2.2.1. Cheap to implement

1.2.2.2. Can exploit lexical variety, being based on natural language

1.2.3. Weaknesses

1.2.3.1. Results can be noisy. Unsophisticated use is recall orientated, easily leading to information overload

1.2.3.2. Based only on terms within the text, so no tolerance for alternative terms for same concept

1.3. BoBI

1.3.1. An alphabetised list of major concepts in the text, which point to small areas of likely relevance rather than large sections of text.

1.3.2. Strenghts

1.3.2.1. More than a list of words within a text. Entries may include alternative terms, as see or see also references

1.3.2.2. Browsable

1.3.3. Weaknesses

1.3.3.1. Quality is variable. Length may be dictated to by economic considerations rather than by intellectual ones

1.3.3.2. Time consuming to construct, can delay publications

2. Examples from slide notes by Alan Poulter. Diagrams from IFLA (2009) FRBR Final Report, pp14,15

3. Access points(RDA), aka Added entries (AACR2).

3.1. (marks will tell me how many I need. 2 marks = 2 access points)

3.2. Access points guide the searcher towards the item. Taken from the data.

3.3. Assume main author/title

3.4. Extra routes to records

3.4.1. Other authors, contributors etc.

3.4.2. Organisational ‘parts’, e.g.

3.4.2.1. Research Unit A, Uni X.

3.4.2.2. Uni X, see also Research Unit A

3.4.3. Series

3.4.4. Related/component works

3.4.5. Alternative forms of all the above

3.5. Need authority files

4. Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD)

4.1. Need for [internationally] agreed data about Group 1 and Group 2 entities

5. AACR2

5.1. Limitations of AACR2 and MARC21

5.1.1. Existing cataloguing records are monolithic

5.1.1.1. Consist of large numbers of fields

5.1.1.2. Un-related to other records (though access points can help)

5.1.2. As a consequence analysis is repeated and information duplicated

5.1.3. Structure is practitioner driven rather than user driven

5.1.4. Developed in a world where the physical library was dominant

5.1.5. Focused on more traditional bibliographic needs

5.1.6. Ill-equipped to deal with the variety of digital resources which now exist

5.2. AACR2 was first published in 1978 (revised 1998/2002) as a joint effort of the American Library Association, the Canadian Library Association, and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals.

5.3. It provides a set of agreed rules for:

5.3.1. 1. Description (e.g. the attributes of an object)

5.3.2. 2. Access points (e.g. how people search for an object

5.4. e.g

5.4.1. Organizing knowledge : an introduction to managing access to information / Jennifer Rowley and Richard Hartley. — 4th ed. — Aldershot : Ashgate, 2008. — xxiv, 367 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. — Revision of : 3rd ed. Aldershot : Gower, 2000. — ISBN13 978-0-75464431-6 (pbk)

6. Universal Classification Schemes, aka Enumerative Schemes.

6.1. DDC – Created by Melvil Dewey and now in its 23rd edition

6.1.1. DDC

6.1.1.1. Strengths

6.1.1.1.1. 4. Licence to give you the topic in language appropriate to the current day. Should be understandable.

6.1.1.1.2. 1. Universal system. Good because its everywhere. So big places make records you can tap into, plenty of available support.

6.1.1.1.3. 2. Longevity

6.1.1.1.4. 3. Core advantage in being the first. Leads to inertia. Makes a challenge difficult.

6.1.1.1.5. 5. Easy to browse

6.1.1.2. Weaknesses

6.1.1.2.1. 1. Anglo American view of the world. Bad at keeping up with changes in bias in subjects. Western white male Victorians. New topics and currency, knowledge doesn't sit still.

6.1.1.2.2. 7. Spelling issues

6.1.1.2.3. 2. New editions, that move numbers around, cause implementation problems.

6.1.1.2.4. 3. Notation is non expressive, numbers for subjects avoids naming. Notation tries to be expressive, but it isn't.

6.1.1.2.5. 4. Users miss the detail and care in the notation. Universal system is unrealistic, local variations; how deep do you go with dewey in your specific situation. Local conventions are a weakness?

6.1.1.2.6. 5. Hospitality, what sort of subjects are contained. Dispersion, correspond to a pattern of knowledge, but might be a breakage in the nearness of subjects.

6.1.1.2.7. 6. Compromises often need to be made and a best fit approach adopted

6.1.1.3. DDC uses 10 main classes. DDC divides each main class into ten divisions, and each division into ten sections

6.1.1.3.1. Main Classes

6.1.1.3.2. Divisions

6.1.1.3.3. Sections

6.1.1.3.4. Subdivision of Sections

6.1.1.3.5. Common Tables

6.1.1.4. Good and bad are flip sides of the same coin, he says.

6.2. UDC – Created by Paul Otlet and Henri la Fontaine and adopted as an international standard

6.2.1. UDC uses 10 main classes

6.3. LCC – Created to classify the books in the Library of Congress

6.3.1. LCC uses 21 main classes

7. Resource Description and Access (RDA)

7.1. Key features

7.1.1. Stronger emphasis on user needs

7.1.1.1. Starts with work rather than item

7.1.1.1.1. Based on FRBR

7.1.1.2. Supports clustering of bibliographic records, to show relationships between works and creators

7.1.1.3. Supports metadata sharing between different metadata communities

7.1.2. Guidelines for resource description rather than display standard

7.1.3. Extensible framework to accommodate future needs

7.1.3.1. Provides more extensive support for digital resources

7.1.3.2. Compatible with MARC21 and Bibframe

7.1.3.3. It is a web-based tool which will provide more rapid access to rules:

7.1.4. Local rule interpretations can be incorporated

7.1.5. Still differentiates between descriptive data and Access point control data

7.2. Released in 2011

7.3. Inspired by database design, it is based on entities, relationships and attributes

7.3.1. An entity is an object which exists in a domain and is distinguishable from other objects in that a domain. Entities are nouns and may be concrete or abstract

7.3.2. A relationship is an association between two or more entities

8. Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)

8.1. Initiated by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)

8.2. "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. In information studies and related fields, FRBR (pronounced Fur-bur) refers to basic informational standards required to produce efficiency and accuracy during record retrieval in electronic catalogs. A catalog is said to be "FRBRized" when a search for an item produces all or most records for that item, regardless of edition and sometimes format. For instance, a search for The Stand by Stephen King in a FRBRized catalog produces a single entry for the work, rather than dozens of catalog entries for the different editions, audiobooks, etc."

8.2.1. 1. WEMI

8.2.1.1. Work

8.2.1.2. Edition

8.2.1.3. Manifestation

8.2.1.4. Item

8.2.2. 2.

8.2.2.1. Person

8.2.2.2. Corporate Body

8.2.3. 3.

8.2.3.1. Concept, object, event and place

8.3. e.g.

8.3.1. A work: Title: The Hound of the Baskervilles. Form: Text. Date of the work: 1902.

8.3.2. An expression can be linked to the work: Title: El Sabueso de los Baskervilles. Form: Graphic novel. Language: Spanish

8.3.3. A manifestation can be linked to the expression: Title: El Sabueso de los Baskervilles. Statement of responsibility: Traducción de Arturo Costa Alvarez; ilustrado por Hugo Ximenez. Place of publication: Mexico. Publisher: Editora Nacional Edinal. Date: 1985. Extent: 112p. : ill.

8.3.4. An item can be linked to the manifestation: Item identifier: AN98-60998. Provenance: Stanley McKenzie collection. Access restrictions: Restricted to Special Collections Room

9. Faceted classifation is different from dewey in that dewey just tries to push things into places. Faceted describes item, like PRECIS, recall Ranganathan. Numbers built from combination of these facets. Gloriously intellectual, challenging, a bit practically unwieldy. Much much longer and complicated identification strings.

10. Faceted classifation

10.1. Universal grouping= particular views of a topic that organise a topic.

10.2. S. R. Ranganathan.

10.2.1. 1933. Colon Classification.

10.2.2. PMEST

10.2.2.1. Personality

10.2.2.2. Matter

10.2.2.3. Energy

10.2.2.4. Space

10.2.2.5. Time

10.3. Difficult to make something that people can deal with. Other people have tried, big long numbers. Possibly impossible task.

11. Thesauri

11.1. Functions of references

11.2. How to work out vocabulary terms, procedures and sources.

11.3. Well- establishedterms? Analyse the literature. Jargon, and whether appropriate to include. Reasons. Hoover.

11.4. Who is this thesaurus for?

11.5. Development

12. Preserved Context Indexing System (Precis)

12.1. In 1967, seconded to the Classification Research Group (CRG), Derek Austin started to make it made it happen. Dissatisfied with DDC and LCC.

12.2. Disadvantages?

12.3. Precis developed as a sideline to classification research. British library. Complex index generator. All index elects made sense, could be moved around. Lead term given a context by the terms that follow it. Codes would produce unambiguous indexes. Dropped because of budget cut. No replacement for indexing library materials.

12.3.1. It is two sets of procedures

12.3.1.1. Syntactic: using a general ‘grammar’ of roles to generate one or more terms (a ‘string’) to unambiguously represent a topic

12.3.1.1.1. String creation

12.3.1.2. Semantic: setting up permanent thesaural connections between terms where needed

12.4. Advantages?