Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025283787 = product of:
  0.050567575 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 2848, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2848)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=2848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2848, 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=2848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.131-137

0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 5520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=5520,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 5520, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5520)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper reflects on some major aspects related to library subject access systems in the era of networked information. The main argument builds on the fact that we nowadays witness the strongest demand and expectation on subject access tools, coming from far beyond the traditional library world, but the field remains the weakest side of international librarianship. While the emergence to cope with the practical challenges of a wider environment is emphasized, the need to reinforce the internationalization of knowledge organization as a professional library matter is stressed, not only at the pragmatic level but also, more importantly, in theoretical terms.

0.00957139 = product of:
  0.03828556 = sum of:
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=3083,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority control is a quite recent term in the long history of cataloguing, although the underlying principle is among the very early principles of bibliographic control. Bibliographic control is a Field in transformation by the rapid expansion of the WWW, which has brought new problems to infonnation discovery and retrieval, creating new challenges and requirements in information management. In a comprehensive approach, authority control is presented as one of the most promising library activities in this respect. The evolution of work methods and standards for the sharing of authority files is reviewed, showing the imbalance in developments and practical achievements between name and subject authority, in an international perspective. The need to improve the network availability and usability of authority information assets in more effective and holistic ways is underlyned; and a new philosophy and scope is proposed for library authority work, based an the primacy of the linking function of authority data, and by expanding the finding, relating and informing functions of authority records. Some of these aspects are being addressed in several projects dealing with knowledge organization systems, notably to cope with multilingual needs and to enable semantic interoperability among different systems. Library practice itself should evolve in the same direction, thereby providing practical experience to inform new or improved principles and standards for authority work, while contributing to enhance local information services and to promote their involvement in the WWW environment.

0.008121594 = product of:
  0.032486375 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=2632,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.

0.0076571116 = product of:
  0.030628446 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=2290,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The history of controlled vocabularies in libraries has long carried the promise of improved retrieval systems based on common goals and shared efforts. This is especially true of subject vocabularies whose data have been managed at two levels. Firstly, in management systems of their own, from which vocabulary products are derived, as in the case of the most commonly used subject heading languages, thesauri and classification schemes. Secondly, in the so called library authority files, that may apply such vocabularies or be used to develop local ones, to control subject access to a given library or bibliographic collection. This two-levelled model of building and sharing subject vocabularies' data is about to change. For many decades the concept of 'intellectual sharing' has been prevalent in such activities, underpinning re-use by adoption and/or collaboration in the management of shared subject systems. Although the Internet has enabled the exposure of centrally managed subject systems and library authority files it has done little to alleviate the significant efforts needed for a full deployment of network shared vocabularies. In particular, the use of classification systems did not advance much. While in theory their potential for subject interoperability across domains and languages is recognized, classifications remain poorly used in practice. They still lack intelligent means to effectively connect and communicate data throughout the network, in a synchronic and non-redundant way. More recently, the development of web technologies has leveraged the concepts of connection, communication and sharing of data to a new level, through linked data. What changes will this bring to the architecture of library subject authority data? Will classification systems live to see the age of their full and easy deployment?