Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.08482824 = product of:
  0.2544847 = sum of:
    0.108150855 = weight(_text_:united in 2553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.108150855 = score(doc=2553,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.43829006 = fieldWeight in 2553, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2553)
    0.14633387 = sum of:
      0.1041956 = weight(_text_:states in 2553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1041956 = score(doc=2553,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = queryNorm
          0.43020093 = fieldWeight in 2553, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2553)
      0.04213828 = weight(_text_:22 in 2553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04213828 = score(doc=2553,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043984205 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.0747827 = product of:
  0.2243481 = sum of:
    0.15141119 = weight(_text_:united in 1524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15141119 = score(doc=1524,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.6136061 = fieldWeight in 1524, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1524)
    0.072936915 = product of:
      0.14587383 = sum of:
        0.14587383 = weight(_text_:states in 1524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14587383 = score(doc=1524,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.6022813 = fieldWeight in 1524, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.034639753 = product of:
  0.10391926 = sum of:
    0.016943282 = weight(_text_:information in 7173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016943282 = score(doc=7173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 7173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7173)
    0.08697598 = weight(_text_:networks in 7173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08697598 = score(doc=7173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.4180698 = fieldWeight in 7173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7173)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic investigation of cooperative cataloging outside North America. Since cooperative cataloging requires a certain level of telecommunication and computerization, most networks are found in Europe and in the Pacific Rim. With information taken from secondary sources, details relevant to cooperative cataloging are given for each network that provides this service to its members. With increased attention to document delivery and information retrieval, cooperative cataloging is less important in network formation than in the past

0.012683997 = product of:
  0.07610398 = sum of:
    0.07610398 = weight(_text_:networks in 5572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07610398 = score(doc=5572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.36581108 = fieldWeight in 5572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5572)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.003476231 = product of:
  0.020857384 = sum of:
    0.020857384 = product of:
      0.04171477 = sum of:
        0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 5054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171477 = score(doc=5054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.0030262163 = product of:
  0.018157298 = sum of:
    0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 5449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018157298 = score(doc=5449,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 5449, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5449)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

Footnote

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

0.0024830222 = product of:
  0.0148981325 = sum of:
    0.0148981325 = product of:
      0.029796265 = sum of:
        0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029796265 = score(doc=159,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.001996785 = product of:
  0.011980709 = sum of:
    0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 5432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011980709 = score(doc=5432,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5432, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5432)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.