Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.037770826 = product of:
  0.07554165 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 5531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=5531,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 5531, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5531)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 5531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=5531,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 5531, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5531)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Library of Congress subject heading policy has been frequently criticized for using obsolete and biased terminology, for not providing subject analysis in depth, and for being overly research library oriented. While both PRECIS and the Subject Analysis Project offer possible solutions, fiscal considerations make their adoptions unlikely. By using existing computer technology, individual libraries could improve subject access by improved subject searching capabilities and by implementations of subject authority files which could tailor LC subject headings to the individual libraries' needs and provide an individualized cross-reference structure. For its part, the Library of Congress should provide an uptatable machine readable file of its complete cross-reference structure. This file should contain all references used in the Library of Congress Public Catalog since much of LC's subject heading practice is based upon its cross-reference structure. With such improvements, LC subject headings could provide much better subject access at an acceptable cost

0.031147273 = product of:
  0.062294547 = sum of:
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 2553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=2553,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 2553, 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=2553)
    0.024008986 = product of:
      0.04801797 = sum of:
        0.04801797 = weight(_text_:22 in 2553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04801797 = score(doc=2553,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2553, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Canada has a long history of adapting United States subject access tools, including the Library of Congress Classification (LCC), Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), the Dewey Decimal Classification, and the Sears List of Subject Headings, to meet the specific needs of Canadians. This paper addresses the extensions to these American tools for English-speaking Canadians. While the United States and Canada have many similarities, differences exist that require changing terminology and providing greater depth and precision in subject headings and classification for specifically Canadian topics. The major effort has been for Library and Archives Canada (LAC) systematically to provide extensions for LCC and LCSH for use within its cataloging records. This paper examines the history and philosophy of these Canadian efforts to provide enhanced subject access. Paradoxically, French-speaking Canadians may have found it easier to start from scratch with the Repertoire de vedettes-matiere because of the difficult decisions for English-language tools on how much change to implement in an environment where most Canadian libraries use the American subject access tools. Canadian studies scholars around the world can use Canadian records, especially those maintained by LAC, to obtain superior subject access for Canadian topics even if they obtain the documents from other sources.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:18

Source

Library resources and technical services. 52(2008) no.2, S.29-43

0.029890738 = product of:
  0.059781477 = sum of:
    0.042804558 = weight(_text_:library in 159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042804558 = score(doc=159,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.32479787 = fieldWeight in 159, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=159)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=159,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 159, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=159)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In 1946, the Université Laval in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, started using Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in French by creating an authority list, Répertoire de Vedettes-matière (RVM), whose first published edition appeared in 1962. In the 1970s, the most important libraries in Canada with an interest in French-language cataloging - the Université de Montréal, the Bibliothèque Nationale du Canada, and the Bibliothèque Nationale du Quebec - forged partnerships with the Université Laval to support RVM. In 1974, the Bibliothèque Publique d'Information, Centre Pompidou, Paris, France became the first library in Europe to adopt RVM. During the 1980s, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF) created an authority list, RAMEAU, based upon RVM, which is used by numerous French libraries of all types. The major libraries in Luxembourg adopted RVM in 1985. Individual libraries in Belgium also use RVM, often in combination with LCSH. The spread of RVM in the francophone world reflects the increasing importance of the pragmatic North American tradition of shared cataloging and library cooperation. RVM and its European versions are based upon literary warrant and make changes to LCSH to reflect the specific cultural and linguistic meeds of their user communities. While the users of RVM seek to harmonize the various versions, differences in terminology and probably syntax are inevitable.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 46(2002) no.4, S.138-149

0.009866329 = product of:
  0.039465316 = sum of:
    0.039465316 = product of:
      0.07893063 = sum of:
        0.07893063 = weight(_text_:project in 5432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07893063 = score(doc=5432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.37308553 = fieldWeight in 5432, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In an interview with Robert P. Holley, Karen M. Drabenstott provides a history of a professional career that has focused on subject access to information. Since her early work with Pauline Cochrane, she has strongly supported enhanced bibliographic records as a way to improve user access in the online catalog. Her Dewey Decimal Classification Online project showed that the classification offers increased subject retrieval. Her current projects include improved strategies for Web searching and multimedia literacy including subject access.

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 1524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=1524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 1524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1524)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

United States libraries use classification to provide subject browsing in open stacks. The DDC used by 85% of American libraries, is a theoretical, universal attempt to organize all knowledge. The LCC lacks intellectual consistency since it was based upon library warrant to organize materials in one collection. Many academic libraries use LCC because the Library of Congress' shared bibliographic records with the LCC call numbers reflect the collecting interests of academic libraries. LCC is more hospitable to change than DDC whoese phoenix schedules have encountered resistance throughout the world. Classification currently receives less attention than subject headings since United States librarians place great hope in the computer to resolve subject heading problems while remaining conservative about classification

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 5572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=5572,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 5572, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5572)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) has taken an active role in standard setting to foster universal bibliographic control (UBC). UBC is built upon the assumption that a national cataloging agency will catalog national imprints and then share the records nationally and internationally. Standards in support of UBC include the International Standard Bibliographic Descriptions, UNIMARC, authority lists, and miscellaneous guidelines. The IFLA standard setting process requires consensus building and compromise among the various traditions of bibliographic control. The increasing importance of library networks and the internationalization of bibliographic control may reduce the importance of IFLA as a standard setting body.

0.008633038 = product of:
  0.034532152 = sum of:
    0.034532152 = product of:
      0.069064304 = sum of:
        0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 1887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069064304 = score(doc=1887,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 1887, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1887)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article summarizes published documents on metadata provided by Google for books scanned as part of the Google Book Search (GBS) project and provides suggestions for improvement. The faulty, misleading, and confusing metadata in current Google records can pose potentially serious problems for users of GBS. Google admits that it took data, which proved to be inaccurate, from many sources and is attempting to correct errors. Some argue that metadata is not needed with keyword searching; but optical character recognition (OCR) errors, synonym control, and materials in foreign languages make reliable metadata a requirement for academic researchers. The authors recommend that users should be able to submit error reports to Google to correct faulty metadata.

0.006699973 = product of:
  0.026799891 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=5449,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5449, 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=5449)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Cataloging remains a fundamental component of library and information science and has many lessons to teach the architects of the Internet age. All students can benefit from taking a cataloging course, especially if it stresses cataloging as one specific answer to the problems of managing information and places cataloging within a larger context that also includes indexing and Internet search engines. Students deserve cataloging courses that combine theory and practice, avoid memorization, and require them to show a mastery of core principles rather than picky details. This paper includes specific suggestions on how to make cataloging exciting.

0.0059419204 = product of:
  0.023767682 = sum of:
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=5054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5054, 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=5054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 22(1993) no.1, S.13-17