Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030533507 = product of:
  0.061067015 = sum of:
    0.061067015 = sum of:
      0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.008118451 = score(doc=101,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.052948564 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052948564 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

Type

a

0.025451606 = product of:
  0.050903212 = sum of:
    0.050903212 = sum of:
      0.013462927 = weight(_text_:a in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013462927 = score(doc=769,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.25351265 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 769, 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=769)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Hierarchical Interface to Library of Congress Classification (HILCC) is a system developed by the Columbia University Library to leverage call number data from the MARC holdings records in Columbia's online catalog to create a structured, hierarchical menuing system that provides subject access to the library's electronic resources. In this paper, the authors describe a research initiative at the Cornell University Library to discover if the Columbia HILCC scheme can be used as developed or in modified form to create a virtual undergraduate print collection outside the context of the traditional online catalog. Their results indicate that, with certain adjustments, an HILCC model can indeed, be used to represent the holdings of a large research library's undergraduate collection of approximately 150,000 titles, but that such a model is not infinitely scalable and may require a new approach to browsing such a large information space.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 3667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=3667,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3667, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There seems to be general agreement in the library community that a predictably ordered system of classification, leading to easy browsability of a library collection either in the stacks or in an OPAC, is an indispensible requirement for the kind of access patrons have come to expect, and for the reasonable success of the searching strategies they normally use. In this vein, examines the intrinsic value of browsing. In addition, with the help of some rough data compiled during a test conducted at Cornell University in the spring of 1994, estimates the cost of maintaining the collocative and alphabetical integrity of shelflist files for works by or about individual literary authors

Type

a