Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010973599 = product of:
  0.043894395 = sum of:
    0.043894395 = weight(_text_:data in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043894395 = score(doc=706,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.29644224 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Descriptive cataloging is the process of representing resources by recording their identifying traits and selecting specific names and titles to serve as access points. It is a key component of the larger cataloging process alongside subject cataloging, authority work, and encoding. Descriptive cataloging practices have existed for centuries and, over time, have become standardized through the use of cataloging codes. These documents guide this process by prescribing a consistent set of elements, providing directions on how to record these elements, and offering instructions on how to select and format access points. The goal of descriptive cataloging is not to create perfect representations but to provide data to serve users. The international cataloging standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) is now bringing more institutions under the same set of descriptive practices than ever before. This, along with recent technological developments, promises increased sharing and reuse of descriptive cataloging data.

0.009144665 = product of:
  0.03657866 = sum of:
    0.03657866 = weight(_text_:data in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03657866 = score(doc=4140,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24703519 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Among knowledge organizing institutions, libraries have a rich history of depicting persons as information. From personal authority records to descriptions of oral history interviews, libraries have amassed data on persons from a variety of perspectives. Within this set of traditions, however, subtle but significant shifts in practice and conception have occurred, particularly concerning how persons are interpreted and depicted and how such depictions are justified. To explore these issues, we looked to four specific library traditions: authority work, community information, oral history, and "human library" events. Within these traditions, we identified six standards guiding the representation of persons. We performed a content analysis of these standards, along with a semantic alignment and comparison of descriptive elements. From this analysis, we reconstructed an historical timeline and a set of narratives capturing changing definitions of people, a shifting focus from names to identities, and an increasing acceptance of varied sources of justification. Findings show not only a number of critical variations within library practices but also practical and ethical issues concerning the responsibility of libraries as well as the redistribution and reuse of library data on the web.

0.007315732 = product of:
  0.029262928 = sum of:
    0.029262928 = weight(_text_:data in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029262928 = score(doc=3876,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=5708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant. Design/methodology/approach A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization. Findings Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants. Originality/value This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.