English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 49094/83209 (59%)
Visitors : 7015001      Online Users : 70
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/34298


    Title: 使用FRBR模式評量NBINet書目紀錄品質之研究
    Other Titles: Using FRBR to measure the quality of bibliographic records in NBINet
    Authors: 余怜縈;Yu, Ling-ying
    Contributors: 淡江大學資訊與圖書館學系碩士班
    陳和琴;Chen, Ho-chin
    Keywords: FRBR;NBINet;Bibliographic quality;FRBR;NBINet;Bibliographic quality
    Date: 2006
    Issue Date: 2010-01-11 05:07:50 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究以FRBR四個使用者工作(查尋、區辨、選擇、獲取)為基礎,並參考「NBINet合作編目書目資料處理原則」,設計一評量表,藉以檢視NBINet書目紀錄能否滿足使用者需求。研究方法採用文獻分析法與實證研究法。在文獻分析法中,研究者除了探討FRBR之概念、緣起、內容架構及其影響外,並歸納書目紀錄品質之意義與重要性,以探析NBINet品質之相關問題。在實證研究法中,本研究評量之樣本紀錄共861筆,資料類型限中文圖書。評量結果,於記述編目是否滿足使用者需求方面可達98﹪、主題編目達86﹪,至於整體表現則達94﹪。惟於記述編目部分,在217筆無法達到100﹪的紀錄中(約佔所有樣本紀錄的四分之一),平均每筆紀錄會因1.2個欄位的缺漏或錯誤而影響使用者工作。

    研究結果發現,(一)以FRBR的使用者工作可用於檢視書目紀錄品質:書目紀錄中的欄位在FRBR中有其特定的屬性和關係,而這些FRBR模式中的屬性與關係,均有其相對映的使用者工作。利用此一關聯,便能夠以FRBR使用者工作來衡量書目紀錄之品質(二)以FRBR實體屬性建立評量表可行,但應用時有其限制:找出衡量NBINet的必備欄位後,對映出其在FRBR中的屬性與關係,再依其屬性關係與使用者工作的相關性,可以設計出一份評量表。但是評量表的應用受到評量對象的限制,且必須留意評量後所得之百分比數據,應留意群體中落差較大的部分。(三)以評量表評量NBINet書目紀錄品質,就使用者工作的達成程度而言整體表現佳,但須留意影響使用者工作的問題因素;至於一致性與正確性問題則無法衡量:就平均來看可知NBINet之書目紀錄品質足以滿足四個使用者工作,但仍有相當比例的紀錄會影響查尋、區辨、選擇及獲取。此外,應注意且持續改善書目紀錄內容的錯誤。(四)NBINet書目紀錄是否納入CIP資料值得商榷:部分CIP紀錄無法與其/他紀錄整併,而造成重複紀錄的問題。再者,無法得知館藏地的CIP紀錄對於使用者的區辨和獲取意義不顯著,是否納入NBINet值得進一步商榷。

    根據研究結果所提出之建議如下:(一)建議國家圖書館與中國圖書館學會共同推廣FRBR概念模式。(二)建議NBINet舉辦繼續教育與訓練,各合作館也應積極參與。(三)建議修改NBINet合作編目原則。(四)建議NBINet合作館加強書目紀錄的品質維護。(五)建議改善NBINet書目紀錄的重複性。
    This study aims to use FRBR as a basis for scoring the quality of bibliographic records in NBINet. Besides discussing the concept, history, structure and what it affected of FRBR, the author also generalized the meaning and importance of bibliographic record quality, and concluded the status of the quality of NBINet. Documental analysis and empirical study are the main methodology of the study. In this study, 861 research sample records were randomly collected, and examined only the monographs in Chinese language. The statistics which emerged from the sample were arranged into a sample attributes score table and a sample record quality score table. Total average of quality score in descriptive cataloging was 98﹪, in subject cataloging was 86﹪, and overall quality score was 94﹪. Among descriptive cataloging part, 217 records would affect user tasks when imperfections and errors might occur in 1.2 fields of each record on average. The selection of 861 records which was used is very small compared to the number of those contained by the entire NBINet, but there were about one fourth would effect on the efficient of user tasks. Finally, based on the research findings, recommendations are offered as the improvement for relevant institutes.

    According to the results of the study, the conclusions are:
    1. It is feasible using FRBR user tasks to measure the quality of bibliographic records: FRBR maps attributes and relationships of records to user tasks and it assesses the value of those attributes relative to user tasks.
    2. It is feasible using FRBR entities/attributes to create a record quality checklist, but there are some restrictions when implementing it: after evaluating the mandatory elements of measuring NBINet, then using Tom Delsey’s report Functional Analysis of the MARC21 Bibliographic and Holdings Formats as a basis attribute/relationship values appropriate for the elements. When using the checklist, it is necessary to examine the calculation, since there might be significance information hiding beyond
    the high average that we need to review.
    3. Measuring the quality from aspect of user tasks, NBINet performed well as a whole. However, some errors and absences occurred in the records, which may prevent users from user tasks include to find, to identify, to select and to obtain.
    4. Adding CIP records into NBINet need to be revalued. According to the study, some CIP records couldn’t be merged, then duplicate records were created therefore. Furthermore, because of these CIP records couldn’t indicate the location of the item, that is useless for user to identify and to obtain.

    This study proposes some suggestions:
    1. National Central Library and Library Association of the Republic of China should work collaboratively to promote FRBR.
    2. NBINet should conduct continuing education programs, and all participated libraries may be required to attend.
    3. To improve the quality of NBINet some elements of Principles for Processing Bibliographic Data for the NBINet Joint Catalog should be revised.
    4. The participated libraries of NBINet should enforce maintaining and improving the quality of records.
    5. NBINet should reduce the duplicate records in the database.
    Appears in Collections:[資訊與圖書館學系暨研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    0KbUnknown376View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback