Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0044919094 = product of:
  0.022459546 = sum of:
    0.022459546 = weight(_text_:of in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022459546 = score(doc=785,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the light of a proposal for names of families to be treated as a separate form of name heading in the forthcoming Resource Description and Access, this article examines the treatment of families in the Anglo-American descriptive cataloging tradition and the extent to which names of families have been assigned as non-subject access points. It contrasts manuscript catalogers' practice of assigning family name headings with the general binary division of personal and corporate names, and discusses how an expansion of the library definition of authorship, so as to accommodate the archival concept of provenance, may more readily allow for familial and other non-corporate group authors. It concludes by suggesting that a corporate and non-corporate group categorisation may be unnecessary, and that instead the corporate body class should be revised, so as to encompass all groups of persons.

0.003583304 = product of:
  0.01791652 = sum of:
    0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 2995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01791652 = score(doc=2995,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2995, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2995)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Resource Description and Access (RDA) includes new lists of content and carrier types intended to replace the General Material Designations (GMDs) and Specific Material Designations (SMDs) of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), and which represent taxonomies designed to facilitate searching on content and carrier attributes of resources. However, these taxonomies were not constructed through analysis of end-user categorizations, nor have they been tested on end-users. This study investigates how end-users categorize library resources by employing the free-listing technique, commonly employed by cognitive scientists and information architects. The results indicate that end-user categorizations of library resources may emphasize other facets, such as purpose, audience and extent, in addition to content and carrier, and also levels of the content and carrier facets other than those represented by the RDA terms.

0.0035331852 = product of:
  0.017665926 = sum of:
    0.017665926 = weight(_text_:of in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665926 = score(doc=234,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules include special rules for personal name headings in certain languages under 22.21-22.28. This article investigates the extent to which four of these rules, pertaining to Indonesian, Malay, and Thai names, have been applied by catalogers contributing to the Australian National Bibliographic Database and discusses their value of these rules in the context of the general rules they supplement. It was found that many headings were not compliant with the rules, especially those resulting from English-language cataloging. Given catalogers' apparent difficulty in applying the special rules, it is recommended that they be deleted, that the general rules be further generalized, and that more use is made of relevant linguistic and cultural resources.

0.0033174944 = product of:
  0.016587472 = sum of:
    0.016587472 = weight(_text_:of in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016587472 = score(doc=2278,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article describes the development and application of the Cat with Moose courseware in the cataloging curricula at Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore, which offers diploma-level, paraprofessional training in library and information service (LIS). The aim of Cat with Mouse is to provide students with practice in cataloging a range of materials, both print and nonprint, in an online environment. The courseware checks the entries as students progress through the record template and allows them to simultaneously consult windows containing the relevant sources of information. The product is designed to be used as a revision tool and is accessible to students through the Internet. The development team revised a prototype version after feedback was collected by means of a questionnaire. Most students found the courseware useful and that it made revision easier. It is argued that, as an assessment tool, Cat with Mouse is also reliable and valid, and that the distinctive benefits the courseware offers has made the investment in the project worthwhile.

Source

Journal of education for library and information science. 41(2000) no.3, S.187-196

0.0031601768 = product of:
  0.015800884 = sum of:
    0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015800884 = score(doc=5772,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It has been widely recognised that MLS courses and on-the-job training need to be supplemented by continuing professional development (CPD), if catalogers are to fulfil their potential and remain in the field. The results of a questionnaire survey show that catalogers and other metadata specialists are undertaking a broad range of CPD activities, and would welcome more opportunities. They are especially keen on short courses, but also interested in more formal and longer-term programs, and are looking to upgrade their skills and knowledge in both traditional and emerging areas. While most think that their CPD efforts can advance their careers, many catalogers consider levels of support from employers and the profession to be less than adequate.