Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029109644 = product of:
  0.116438575 = sum of:
    0.116438575 = weight(_text_:objects in 383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116438575 = score(doc=383,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39656353 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07461114 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 383, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=383)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The overall format of the QB schedule still bears the imprint of its origin in late Victorian times and can be puzzling to those acquainted with recent ideas in the field. This article explores some of the factors behind the present appearance of the schedule, current areas of research in astronomy and how they relate to its history, and particular deficiencies in the QBs for dealing with recent research. Before the 1950s, astronomy was a very limited science, concerned mainly with optical observations of the heavens and the analysis of celestial motions and stellar interiors. More than one-fourth of all fundamental astronomical phenomena have been observed for the first time within the past 30 years. The invention of non-optical means of observation and the exploration of space greatly increased the resolving power of known objects within the solar system and gave rise to new topics. Recent research in astronomy greatly increased the scope of topics within the science, while, paradoxically, making astronomy itself a less clearly defined subject. Astronomy's debt to other sciences is seen most clearly in Library of Congress Classification's tendency to scatter astronomical topics throughout the rest of the Q schedule. Suggestions are offered for changes which could make QB a more relevant method of classifying current astronomy materials.

0.020217558 = product of:
  0.08087023 = sum of:
    0.08087023 = weight(_text_:22 in 2547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08087023 = score(doc=2547,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2612755 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07461114 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.011643857 = product of:
  0.046575427 = sum of:
    0.046575427 = weight(_text_:objects in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046575427 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.39656353 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07461114 = queryNorm
        0.117447585 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST. 58(2007) no.6., S.909-910 (A.D. Petrou): "A division in metadata definitions for physical objects vs. those for digital resources offered in Chapter 1 is punctuated by the use of broader, more inclusive metadata definitions, such as data about data as well as with the inclusion of more specific metadata definitions intended for networked resources. Intertwined with the book's subject matter, which is to "distinguish traditional cataloguing from metadata activity" (5), the authors' chosen metadata definition is also detailed on page 5 as follows: Thus while granting the validity of the inclusive definition, we concentrate primarily on metadata as it is most commonly thought of both inside and outside of the library community, as "structured information used to find, access, use and manage information resources primarily in a digital environment." (International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science, 2003) Metadata principles discussed by the authors include modularity, extensibility, refinement and multilingualism. The latter set is followed by seven misconceptions about metadata. Two types of metadata discussed are automatically generated indexes and manually created records. In terms of categories of metadata, the authors present three sets of them as follows: descriptive, structural, and administrative metadata. Chapter 2 focuses on metadata for communities of practice, and is a prelude to content in Chapter 3 where metadata applications, use, and development are presented from the perspective of libraries. Chapter 2 discusses the emergence and impact of metadata on organization and access of online resources from the perspective of communities for which such standards exist and for the need for mapping one standard to another. Discussion focuses on metalanguages, such as Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and eXtensible Markup Language (XML), "capable of embedding descriptive elements within the document markup itself' (25). This discussion falls under syntactic interoperability. For semantic interoperability, HTML and other mark-up languages, such as Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) and Computer Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI), are covered. For structural interoperability, Dublin Core's 15 metadata elements are grouped into three areas: content (title, subject, description, type, source, relation, and coverage), intellectual property (creator, publisher, contributor and rights), and instantiation (date, format, identifier, and language) for discussion.