Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020374056 = product of:
  0.061122168 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 5753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=5753,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 5753, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5753)
    0.048628245 = product of:
      0.09725649 = sum of:
        0.09725649 = weight(_text_:ausbildung in 5753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09725649 = score(doc=5753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23429902 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.4150956 = fieldWeight in 5753, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3671665 = idf(docFreq=560, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A survey of postgraduate education and training for cataloguing and classification in the British Isles in late 2003 was carried out by consulting websites and sending an email request. Cataloguing and classification have become largely invisible in professional education, but it appears that most courses still include something about them, though not always as a compulsory module and usually without much practical work. The course at University College London is described. Views of recent graduates, and of chief cataloguers and other trainers, are included, and show that the general opinion is that not enough is being taught about cataloguing and classification. Finally the article looks at training given by commercial providers.

Theme

Ausbildung

0.011556499 = product of:
  0.034669496 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=5365,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
    0.020700864 = product of:
      0.04140173 = sum of:
        0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04140173 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 5421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=5421,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 5421, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5421)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Examines the problem of errors in the chief source of information and their transcription into catalog records. A survey of 80 different OPACs was undertaken, looking at the occurrence of "sic" and "i.e." in titles and the position of the errors within the titles. The various usages of "sic" and "i.e." are categorized and described; these range from those where the error is obvious to some where there seems to be no error at all. Some seem to be clear misuses, particularly the common system of using additions in square brackets to spell out numerals, and in some cases the cataloger goes beyond what is required. Concludes with recommendations for improvement in retrieval.

0.0023281053 = product of:
  0.013968632 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=255,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Public library catalogues in early twentieth-century Britain frequently included annotations, either to clarify obscure titles or to provide further information about the subject-matter of the books they described. Two manuals giving instruction on how to do this were published at that time. Following World War I, with the decline of the printed catalogue, this kind of annotation became rarer, and was almost confined to bulletins of new books. The early issues of the British National Bibliography included some annotations in exceptional cases. Parallels are drawn with the provision of table-of-contents information in present-day OPAC's.

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Cataloger, Editor, and Scholar: Essays in Honor of Ruth C. Carter

0.0022310577 = product of:
  0.0133863455 = sum of:
    0.0133863455 = weight(_text_:in in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0133863455 = score(doc=659,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.22543246 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to compare Anglo-American cataloguing codes and practices for description over the past 150 years and assess the contribution that they made to International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD). Design/methodology/approach - The major international codes, and those of major British libraries, are examined point by point, using as a basis the main areas of description as outlined in AACR2. Cataloguing textbooks are also referred to when appropriate. Findings - The article finds that general order of elements has been remarkably constant throughout the period, most variation being seen in the physical description area. Primacy of the title page as a source of information is long established. Publisher's name was often of minor importance, and in public libraries physical description was greatly reduced. It is clear from wording that codes often adopted rules from one another, and evidently some libraries made a great attempt to adopt the latest thinking. Solutions to some problems evolved gradually over a long period. Even some apparently minor aspects of punctuation have a long pedigree. ISBD clearly drew on a long-established consensus as far as possible. Practical implications - In revising AACR2 it is important to be able to see how we have reached where we are now, and in particular to avoid repetition of past mistakes. In an increasingly international publishing environment it is vital to solve the problem of multiple places of publication. Originality/value - This subject has never been tackled in this way before, and the findings are timely for the ongoing revision of AACR2.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: UK library & information schools: UCL SLAIS

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 5400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=5400,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 5400, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5400)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Continues the results of the Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, this looking at forms of name and cross-references. Tests were conducted to examine results of searching for a personal name, Leonardo da Vinci, and a corporate entered subordinately, under parts of the name which were not the leading element. Many libraries provide no cross-references, and in many cases the presence absence of punctuation in the search string has a significant effect. The effect variation when combined in an Author/Title search is also considered. The also considers the special filing of names beginning Mc, which is almost confined to some British systems, and the interfiling of subject with author entries personal names. A number of recommendations conclude the article.

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 3746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=3746,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 3746, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3746)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This entry covers both the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules of 1967 and the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition of 1978 and later. These were the most important advances in English-language codes for descriptive cataloging during the twentieth century. The 1967 code, produced in different American and British editions, included rules for choice and form of headings as well as rules for description, the former being based on the outcomes of the Paris Conference on Cataloguing Principles of 1961. The advent of International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) brought changes to the rules for description, and these were incorporated in the 1978 code, which for the first time instituted a formal separation between description and access points. Significant features of both editions are described.