Vol. 13 No. 3 (2022): Modelling knowledge, archival and bibliographic standards in comparison. 1st JLIS.it Seminar - 19 May 2022

Conceptual models and users

Lucia Sardo
University of Bologna - Campus of Ravenna
Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

Published 2022-09-15


  • Conceptual models,
  • User tasks,
  • Cataloguing

How to Cite

Sardo, L. (2022). Conceptual models and users. JLIS.It, 13(3), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.36253/jlis.it-479


The paper presents an analysis of user tasks in the conceptual models, with an overview of the objectives and functions
of the catalogue from Cutter to the International Cataloguing Principles, a critical reflection on user tasks and a proposal
for a rethinking of these. The user tasks as presented in the conceptual models present critical aspects, in particular they
do not bring out some important aspects concerning the users’ motivations for searches and the users’ competences. The
presentation of some critical aspects of user Ttasks is followed by an initial proposal for a more complex reflection on how
users use catalogues to carry out searches of different kinds.


Metrics Loading ...


  1. Bianchini, Carlo. 2012. “Dagli OPAC ai library linked data: come cambiano le risposte ai bisogni degli utenti”. AIB Studi 52 (3): 303-23, http://dx.doi.org/10.2426/aibstudi-8597.
  2. Borgman, Christine. 1996. “Why are Online catalogs still hard to use?”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47 (7): 493-505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199607)47:7<493::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-P
  3. Calhoun, Karen. 2006. The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools, prepared for the Library of Congress by Karen Calhoun, https://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf.
  4. Clarke, Rachel Ivy. 2015. “Breaking records: the history of bibliographic records and their influence in conceptualizing bibliographic data”. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53 (3-4): 286-302, DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2014.960988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.960988
  5. Coyle, Karen. 2017. FRBR: prima e dopo. Un esame dei modelli bibliografici, traduzione di Lucia Sardo. Roma: Associazione italiana biblioteche.
  6. Cutter, Charles Ammi. 1904. Rules for a Dictionary catalog, 4th ed. Washington: Government printing office.
  7. Fattahi, Rahmatollah. 2010. From information to knowledge: superworks and the challenges in the organization and representation of the bibliographic universe = Dall’informazione alla conoscenza: le super-opere e le sfide dell’organizzazione e rappresentazione dell’universo bibliografico, Fiesole (Firenze): Casalini Libri. Traduzione di Maria Letizia Fabbrini. https://www.torrossa.com/resources/an/2413720.
  8. Hoffman, Gretchen L. 2009. “Meeting users’ needs in cataloging: what is the right thing to do?”, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 47 (7): 631-41, DOI: 10.1080/01639370903111999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639370903111999
  9. IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). 2000. Requisiti funzionali per record bibliografici. Rapporto conclusivo. Edizione italiana a cura dell’Istituto centrale per il catalogo unico delle biblioteche italiane e per le informazioni bibliografiche. Roma: ICCU.
  10. IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions). 2020. IFLA Library Reference Model. Un modello concettuale per le informazioni bibliografiche. Pat Riva, Patrick Le Boeuf, and Maja Zumer. Edizione italiana a cura dell’Istituto centrale per il catalogo unico delle biblioteche italiane e per le informazioni bibliografiche. Roma: ICCU.
  11. IFLA Cataloguing section and IFLA meeting of experts on an International cataloguing code. 2016. Dichiarazione di principi internazionali di catalogazione (ICP). Edizione 2016 con piccole correzioni 2017 di Agnese Galeffi (chair), María Violeta Bertolini, Robert L. Bothmann, Elena Escolano Rodríguez, and Dorothy McGarry, traduzione italiana, a cura del Gruppo di lavoro tecnico per la traduzione degli ICP 2016, https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/icp/icp_2016-it.pdf.
  12. IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR). 2010. Requisiti funzionali per i dati di autorità. Un modello concettuale. A cura di Glenn E. Patton. Edizione italiana a cura dell’Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo Unico delle biblioteche italiane e per le informazioni bibliografiche. Roma: ICCU
  13. IFLA Working Group on the Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR). 2010. Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data (FRSAD). A conceptual model, editors Marcia Lei Zeng, Maja Žumer, Athena Salaba; Approved by the Standing Committee of the IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing, June 2010, https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/classification-and-indexing/functional-requirements-for-subject-authority-data/frsad-final-report.pdf.
  14. Madison, Olivia M. A. 2000. “The IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: International Standards for Universal Bibliographic Control”. Library Resources & Technical Services 44 (3): 153–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.44n3.153
  15. Mann, Thomas. 2006. “Il catalogo e gli altri strumenti di ricerca: un punto di vista dalla Library of Congress”. Bollettino AIB, 46 (3): 186-206, http://bollettino.aib.it/article/view/5154/4921.
  16. Miksa, Francis. 2012. “The legacy of the library catalogue for the present”. Library Trends, 61 (1): 7-34, DOI: 10.1353/lib.2012.0023, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2012.0023
  17. Petrucciani, Alberto. 1984, Funzione e struttura del catalogo per autore. Firenze: Giunta regionale toscana, La Nuova Italia Editrice.
  18. Weston, Paul Gabriele, e Lucia Sardo. 2017. Metadati. Roma: Associazione italiana biblioteche.