Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01106493 = product of:
  0.033194788 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=4309,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
    0.020700864 = product of:
      0.04140173 = sum of:
        0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04140173 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 1191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=1191,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 1191, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1191)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

GLAM organizations have been digitizing their collections and making them available for the public for several decades. Recent methods for publishing digital collections such as "GLAM Labs" and "Collections as Data" provide guidelines for the application of computational methods to reuse the contents of cultural heritage institutions in innovative and creative ways. Jupyter Notebooks have become a powerful tool to foster use of these collections by digital humanities researchers. Based on previous approaches for quality assessment, which have been adapted for cultural heritage collections, this paper proposes a methodology for assessing the quality of projects based on Jupyter Notebooks published by relevant GLAM institutions. A list of projects based on Jupyter Notebooks using cultural heritage data has been evaluated. Common features and best practices have been identified. A detailed analysis, that can be useful for organizations interested in creating their own Jupyter Notebooks projects, has been provided. Open issues requiring further work and additional avenues for exploration are outlined.

Content

Beitrag in: JASIST special issue on 'Who tweets scientific publications? A large-scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research'. Vgl.: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24835. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24835.

0.0012881019 = product of:
  0.007728611 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=266,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article presents the results of a case study of editing required on OCLC bibliographic records for print monographs and video/DVD monographs during a three-month test at two mid-sized academic libraries. First, the authors reviewed the literature of cataloging/catalog quality and consider the problems this literature presents in terms of creating meaningful and measurable standards of "quality." Next, they define "quality" for the purposes of the case study and describe case-study procedures for determining and comparing extent of editing required for records to meet comparable standards. They then present results indicating that records for print monographs acquired at the two institutions usually required little or no editing (many of these records were U.S. national-level records), while records for video/DVD monographs required considerably more editing (U.S. nationallevel records for this category of acquisition were not available). Finally, the article proposes establishment of a cooperative program to create U.S. nationallevel bibliographic records for videorecordings/DVDs as a means of reducing redundant institution-level editing and ensuring availability of comparable records across formats.

Footnote

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