Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04382942 = sum of:
  0.02389238 = product of:
    0.09556952 = sum of:
      0.09556952 = weight(_text_:authors in 6521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09556952 = score(doc=6521,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22361259 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049050607 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 6521, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6521)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019937038 = product of:
    0.039874077 = sum of:
      0.039874077 = weight(_text_:22 in 6521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039874077 = score(doc=6521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049050607 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6521, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6521)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines changes in the rules for cataloguing certein categories of printed material, anonymous works, including: those described as being 'by the author of' another named work; pseudonymous works; edited works (collections of writings of several authors); and conference proceedings. Discusses the relevant rules from the British Museum, the 1908 joint code, the Bodleian, Cambridge University Library and AACR2, Samples of London publications taken in specimen years between 1841 and 1991 show that there has been a decrease in anonymous works and in works with personal authors, offset by a sharp increase in multiple authorship, edited works and conference proceedings. Concludes that these changes have taken place in response to external forces. Some changes have been because the rules have been found to be unworkable or based on unnecessary or false distinctions which were impossible for the cataloguer to interpret

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.29-50

0.01162994 = product of:
  0.02325988 = sum of:
    0.02325988 = product of:
      0.04651976 = sum of:
        0.04651976 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04651976 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17176686 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049050607 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.