Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023276636 = product of:
  0.1086243 = sum of:
    0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042009152 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

In reclassifying a Library and Information Science library from DDC to LC, an attempt was made to concentrate books with related subject headings on the shelf for maximum shelf retrieval even in cases where the Subject Authorities or C.I.P. assign them varying numbers. Most of the shelf concentration was achieved either by selecting a single number for a given heading and then classifying all books with the heading in that number or by replacing the standard LC number for a heading with one which placed it together with related books on the shelf.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 5(1984) no.2, S.45-50

0.02166037 = product of:
  0.060649037 = sum of:
    0.014700142 = weight(_text_:subject in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014700142 = score(doc=339,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.13688806 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.00951645 = weight(_text_:classification in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00951645 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.099522084 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.00949952 = product of:
      0.01899904 = sum of:
        0.01899904 = weight(_text_:schemes in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01899904 = score(doc=339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.11824705 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.017416477 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017416477 = score(doc=339,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.14899956 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.00951645 = weight(_text_:classification in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00951645 = score(doc=339,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.099522084 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
  0.35714287 = coord(5/14)

Content

What is metadata? - Metadata schemas & their relationships to particular communities - Library and information-related metadata schemas - Creating library metadata for monographic materials - Creating library metadata for continuing materials - Integrating library metadata into local cataloging and bibliographic - databases - Digital collections/digital libraries - Archiving & preserving digital materials - Impact of digital resources on library services - Future possibilities

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.
Other selected specialized metadata element sets or schemas, such as Government Information Locator Service (GILS), are presented. Attention is brought to the different sets of elements and the need for linking up these elements across metadata schemes from a semantic point of view. It is no surprise, then, that after the presentation of additional specialized sets of metadata from the educational community and the arts sector, attention is turned to the discussion of Crosswalks between metadata element sets or the mapping of one metadata standard to another. Finally, the five appendices detailing elements found in Dublin Core, GILS, ARIADNE versions 3 and 3. 1, and Categories for the Description of Works of Art are an excellent addition to this chapter's focus on metadata and communities of practice. Chapters 3-6 provide an up-to-date account of the use of metadata standards in Libraries from the point of view of a community of practice. Some of the content standards included in these four chapters are AACR2, Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and Library of Congress Subject Classification. In addition, uses of MARC along with planned implementations of the archival community's encoding scheme, EAD, are covered in detail. In a way, content in these chapters can be considered as a refresher course on the history, current state, importance, and usefulness of the above-mentioned standards in Libraries. Application of the standards is offered for various types of materials, such as monographic materials, continuing resources, and integrating library metadata into local catalogs and databases. A review of current digital library projects takes place in Chapter 7. While details about these projects tend to become out of date fast, the sections on issues and problems encountered in digital projects and successes and failures deserve any reader's close inspection. A suggested model is important enough to merit a specific mention below, in a short list format, as it encapsulates lessons learned from issues, problems, successes, and failures in digital projects. Before detailing the model, however, the various projects included in Chapter 7 should be mentioned. The projects are: Colorado Digitization Project, Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (an Office of Research project by OCLC, Inc.), California Digital Library, JSTOR, LC's National Digital Library Program and VARIATIONS.

LCSH

Machine / readable bibliographic data formats

Subject

Machine / readable bibliographic data formats

0.007061705 = product of:
  0.04943193 = sum of:
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=3100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 3100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3100)
    0.014238005 = product of:
      0.02847601 = sum of:
        0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 3100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02847601 = score(doc=3100,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3100, 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=3100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

ALEPH, Israel's research library network, was implemented as a highly decentralized network consisting of nearly 30 different files and no union catalogue. To solve the problem of searching these separate files, the Union List of Monographs was implemented in 1991. In reality, neither a union list nor confined to monographs, the Union List of Monographs is, in effect, a union index for locating bibliographic items by author or title, in order to ascertain where they can be found without searching each library's file separately. Reviews the literature of merging files and records, and describes the development of an algorithm for producing the Union List of Monographs

Date

22. 2.1999 13:00:54

0.00605289 = product of:
  0.042370226 = sum of:
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The primary objective of the present study was to exmine whether readers conducting bibliographic searches in ALEPH - Israel's research library network - tend to search only within the OPAC of the library within which they are working or whether they access the remote OPACs of other libraries. The ALEPH network has a dezentralized database. Therefore, it was possible to examine this question because each library has its own access code and each database can be searched separately. The data were collected by means of a one-page questionnaire lefr beside each terminal in the library of the Graduate School of Library and Archive Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during an entire academic years. results of analysis of the data collected in this survey are presented in 6 tables

Date

22. 2.1999 13:06:18

0.00576784 = product of:
  0.04037488 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=507,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 507, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=507)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=507,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 507, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=507)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 12(1991) nos.3/4, S.51-67

0.0024248946 = product of:
  0.033948522 = sum of:
    0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 1262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033948522 = score(doc=1262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 1262, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1262)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 53(2002) no.14, S.1271-1272 (D.G. Law): "All in all this amkes an excellent primer for the subject"

0.0021547303 = product of:
  0.030166224 = sum of:
    0.030166224 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030166224 = score(doc=3382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 3382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3382)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Reports results of a survey, undertaken in 1996, to measure the performance of the merging algorithm used to generate the now defunct ALEPH ULM (Union List of Monographs) file. Results showed that although the algorithm created almost no mismatches that would have led to the loss of information, it had a greater proportion of missed matches than was anticipated, especially when matching Hebrew bibliographic records. Discusses the central issues inherent in automatic detection and merging of duplicate records, as well as the main methodologies for measuring the performance of merging algorithms. Recommendations include integrating testing procedures into the initial specifications for any future algorithms and deciding on a performance threshold that the algorithm must exceed in order to be put to use