Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0034326524 = product of:
  0.024028566 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
    0.01797477 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01797477 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.0014944416 = product of:
  0.020922182 = sum of:
    0.020922182 = weight(_text_:web in 5101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020922182 = score(doc=5101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 5101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5101)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Describes a new approach to describing bibliographic entities aimed at fulfilling all the functions of the catalogue in the online environment. While it is assumed that the basic unit of description is the item in hand and records describing items would fulfil the finding, identifying, choosing and locating functions; super records, which are based on the concept of 'super works', would fulfil the collocating function in a more meaningful way. This approach is a solution to the problem of the same work appearing in various manifestations and formats. Super records for voluminous works include attributes that are common to different versions of a work and are linked to bibliographic records for items. Describes a prototype catalogue of super records that has been developed and made available on the Web to introduce the advantages, limitations and possible consequences of the concept on cataloguing principles, MARC and Z39.50