Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.037970424 = product of:
  0.11391127 = sum of:
    0.11391127 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 7684, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7684)
      0.09497269 = weight(_text_:22 in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09497269 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7684, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7684)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 10(1984), S.17-22

0.020292649 = product of:
  0.060877945 = sum of:
    0.060877945 = sum of:
      0.0133916 = weight(_text_:of in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0133916 = score(doc=126,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As libraries attempt to incorporate increasing amounts of electronic resources into their catalogs, utilizing a growing variety of metadata standards, library and information science programs are grappling with how to educate catalogers to meet these challenges. In this paper, an employer considers the characteristics and skills that catalogers will need and how they might acquire them.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0138297845 = product of:
  0.04148935 = sum of:
    0.04148935 = sum of:
      0.020714074 = weight(_text_:of in 5606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020714074 = score(doc=5606,freq=50.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.3023517 = fieldWeight in 5606, product of:
            7.071068 = tf(freq=50.0), with freq of:
              50.0 = termFreq=50.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5606)
      0.020775277 = weight(_text_:22 in 5606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020775277 = score(doc=5606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 5606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5606)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reviews the basic form and function of catalogues of all types, including: types and form of material catalogued (whether owned by the library or by another library); cataloguing staff; standards; and workflow. Focuses on the changing function of catalogues which now extends not only to items located in the library but to materials that belong conceptually but not physically to the library's stock.

Content

We have all heard the story of the three blind men who were put next to an elephant and asked to describe it. Each of them touched a different part of the beast, and because none of them could examine the entire creature, their resulting description was neither accurate nor useful. Constructing a catalog has always been a bit like describing elephants blind, and rather than getting easier as standardization and new technologies are widely implemented, the emergence of new types of information resources are making the job more difficult. Remotely-accessible electronic information resources are among the newest of cataloging's elephants. Not only is it difficult to see -or touch the entire animal, but the creature may move or change during or after the description process. The beast is also unwieldy, and the person doing the description may have no control or ownership of it. The temptation is great to say that it is not our business to describe either this particular beast or any other animal that we don't own, and to walk away. Unfortunately, remotely-accessible electronic information resources are increasing in number and importance, and access to information about materials over which the local library has no control is becoming both easier and more common. Library users more and more expect to have access to these resources, so the option of leaving them undescribed and thus excluding them from the catalog is becoming indefensible. In coming to grips with the problem of describing these exotic beasts, it may be helpful to recall how we have dealt with similar challenges in the past, and to remember that the practices, rules, policies, and principles that surround and define the activity of cataloging have always reflected the current concept of what constitutes a library catalog, and that that concept inevitably reflects both the history and role of libraries and available technology. Until relatively recently the primary roles of a catalog were widely recognized to be providing inventory control for a particular collection and serving as a finding aid to that collection only, but in practice, even the most elaborate catalogs never fulfilled even these roles entirely. Whole categories of materials, such as maps, photographs, newspapers, pamphlets, and rare books were excluded, or at best were described in separate catalogs or finding aids. Information about the contents of individual objects, such as chapters, contributions, and journal articles were also rarely included in the catalog. A small number of major parts of some works were described through analytic cataloging, and contents of other items were sometimes listed in notes in cataloging records when those parts were considered separable and potentially important in their own right, but because entries were generally not made for items included in contents notes the lists were primarily useful to those who had already found the main record. Description of the internal contents of information resources was left to reference works such as indexes and bibliographies. Far from being viewed as a flaw or insufficiency in the catalog, this need to use outside finding aids was accepted as the way things were.

Date

1. 8.2006 12:22:06

0.007914391 = product of:
  0.023743173 = sum of:
    0.023743173 = product of:
      0.047486346 = sum of:
        0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 2547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486346 = score(doc=2547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2547, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0031316737 = product of:
  0.009395021 = sum of:
    0.009395021 = product of:
      0.018790042 = sum of:
        0.018790042 = weight(_text_:of in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018790042 = score(doc=496,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 496, 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=496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Librarians are often so eager to adopt new technologies and systems that they can lose sight of the realities that must be dealt with. Among factors that may delay use of Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) for on-line catalogues retrieval are: limited use of DDC in libraries with operational on-line catalogues; limitations to the MARC bibliographic formats: lack of an authority structure for classification number for items catalogued. Factors that may delay development of effective classification retrieval mechanisms include unclear terminology and unreasonably high (or low) expectations.

Footnote

Paper presented at the 2nd Annette Lewis Phinazee Symposium on Classification as an enhancement of intellectual access to information in an online environment, held at the School of Library and Information Sciences, North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina.

0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 5460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=5460,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5460, 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=5460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Catalogers and those who manage cataloging operations need a broader practical knowledge base than can be reasonably acquired in library schools, especially since the availability of cataloging coursework in library schools has decreased over time. This paper is written from the perspective of a manager of cataloging operations, and considers the kinds of skills, education and training needed for both catalogers and managers. It concentrates primarily on library specific education, computer, and communication skills, and suggests how such skills can be acquired and maintained.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Education for cataloging and the organization of information: pitfalls and the pendulum; Part I

0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=256,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although the appropriateness of faculty status for technical services librarians serving in academic libraries is often debated, these librarians usually share the same personnel status as other librarians in the same institution. The success of technical services librarians in achieving tenure is explored, along with perceptions about the relative ease with which they may attain it. Possible impediments to success are identified, with special focus on the portrayal and evaluation of the practice of librarianship, as distinct from scholarly or service pursuits. Strategies for countering these impediments are suggested.

Footnote

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

0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=798,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 798, 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=798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Management issues related to the quality of a library's catalog and its source databases reflect the continual evolution of both. As catalogs seem about to mutate rather than to continue to evolve gradually, a review of how management thought about database quality was developed may assist libraries to recognize which principles and circumstances remain valid and true, to assess which are no longer applicable, and to decide what actions to take. A persistent shortcoming in the decision-making process that needs to be addressed is the lack of serious research into user needs and benefits, and the actual impact on users of database quality decisions.

0.0026467475 = product of:
  0.007940242 = sum of:
    0.007940242 = product of:
      0.015880484 = sum of:
        0.015880484 = weight(_text_:of in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015880484 = score(doc=5567,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 5567, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5567)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As I have listened to descriptions of substantial changes being worked on in the various classification schemes, and as I have heard exhortations to librarians to get involved in applying classification to areas that most of us currently don't touch, I have been reminded of a T-shirt slogan that was popular around the time of the Vietnam War, to wit: "It's hard to remember that the original objective was to drain the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators." And frankly, that's where most administrators find themselves- in the swamp, fending off alligators. Perhaps it was a process of free association that made me come up with a rather dismal mnemonic to identify what I see as the greatest challenges for a library administrator trying to deal with classification: MIA - Money - Inertia - Attitude

0.0015782153 = product of:
  0.0047346456 = sum of:
    0.0047346456 = product of:
      0.009469291 = sum of:
        0.009469291 = weight(_text_:of in 405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009469291 = score(doc=405,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 405, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The very terms 'outsourcing' is seen by many cataloguing departments as a scary word. However, the term is used to mean different things by different people. It carries meanings ranging from traditionally outsourced activities to more recent outsourcing of entire functions, departments, or units. This article identifies long-accepted ways in which cataloguing departments have utilized outsourcing and differences and similarities between those practices and more recent outsourcing activities