Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004057089 = product of:
  0.028399622 = sum of:
    0.028399622 = product of:
      0.070999056 = sum of:
        0.03661892 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03661892 = score(doc=3033,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
        0.034380134 = weight(_text_:system in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034380134 = score(doc=3033,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

In this paper I describe a conceptual design of a bibliographic retrieval system that enables more thourough control of bibliographic entities. A bibliographic entity has 2 components: the intellectual work and the physical item. Users searching bibliographic retrieval systems generally do not search for a specific item, but are willing to retrieve one of several alternative manifestations of a work. However, contemporary bibliographic retrieval systems are based solely on the descriptions of items. Works are described only implcitly by collocating descriptions of items. This method has resulted in a tool that does not include important descriptive attributes of the work, e.g. information regarding its history, its genre, or its bibliographic relationships. A bibliographic relationship is an association between 2 bibliographic entities. A system evaluation methodology wasused to create a conceptual schema for a bibliographic retrieval system. The model is based upon an analysis of data elements in the USMARC Formats for Bibliographic Data. The conceptual schema describes a database comprising 2 separate files of bibliographic descriptions, one of works and the other of items. Each file consists of individual descriptive surrogates of their respective entities. the specific data content of each file is defined by a data dictionary. Data elements used in the description of bibliographic works reflect the nature of works as intellectual and linguistic objects. The descriptive elements of bibliographic items describe the physical properties of bibliographic entities. Bibliographic relationships constitute the logical strucutre of the database

0.002613878 = product of:
  0.018297145 = sum of:
    0.018297145 = product of:
      0.045742862 = sum of:
        0.025893483 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025893483 = score(doc=6683,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 6683, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6683)
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 6683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=6683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 6683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6683)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A textual identity network is a set of documents that share common semantic or linguistic content. For example, the textual identity network of Ben-Hur includes the progenitor work, translations, screen play adaptations, and film performances. A network might also include successively numbered editions, simultaneous editions published in various countries, and other derivative forms. This network expresses how a work evolves over time and through a variety of media. Evolving textual identity can be expressed as a set of relationships among the members of the network. Several taxonomies of intertextual associations have been developed for use in information retrieval systems. The individual documents (books, films, computer files, etc.) contained in a textual identity network can be associated through a number of pairwise relationships, and the network can be studied as a system. This basic pattern makes textual networks ideal candidates for study using network analysis techniques, allowing summary measures that characterize networks. Topological indices provide high-level measures of network structure. This paper concludes on a discussion of how topological indices might be used in document retrieval

0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, 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=107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0016608781 = product of:
  0.011626146 = sum of:
    0.011626146 = product of:
      0.058130726 = sum of:
        0.058130726 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058130726 = score(doc=536,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.5305404 = fieldWeight in 536, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=536)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Three methods of access to musical works on sound recordings are: name-title added entries; title added entries; and contents notes, which may allow access to works through keyword indexes. The purpose of this research was to learn about the comparative effectiveness of standard OPAC retrieval techniques utilized to retrieve sound recordings of musical works. A sample of recorded musical works was searched in CLIO (Columbia Libraries Information Online). The number of musical works per sound recording, and the work's type of title were tested as influencing factors in the success of various retrieval techniques. Retrieval-set sizes, and the number of steps required to locate a target record were also measured for each of the retrieval techniques. Keyword retrieval is shown to be effective. The comparable effectiveness of keyword searching with conventional title searching appears to be dependent on the number of works contained on the recording. Keyword retrieval is not as successful as title searching when title entries are provided.

7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 5579) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=5579,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 5579, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5579)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Evaluates current research into bibliographic relationships sparked off by B.B. Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (LRTS 35(1991) no.4, S.393-405) and R.P. Smiraglia's taxonomy of the derivative bibliographic relationship (PhD dissertation, Chicago Univ., Graduate Library School, 1992). These researches provide the context for a discussion of recent research and standards work. Reevaluates research on the sequential relationship drawn from work conducted on periodicals and the implications of that research is applied to cataloguing system design. Evaluates the conceptual designs proposed by researchers such as G.H. Leazer and M. Gorman's and uses them in a critique of the USMARC format for bibliographic description