Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Riley, J."
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Byrd, J.; Charbonneau, G.; Charbonneau, M.; Courtney, A.; Johnson, E.; Leonard, K.; Morrison, A.; Mudge, S.; O'Bryan, A.; Opasik, S.; Riley, J.; Turchyn, S.: ¬A white paper on the future of cataloging at Indiana University (2006) 0.00 
    0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=3225,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.
    Imprint
    Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Libraries
  2. Riley, J.; Mullin, C.; Hunter, C.: Automatically batch loading metadata from MARC into a work-based metadata model for music (2009) 0.00 
    0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 2994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=2994,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 2994, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2994)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    There has been a flurry of constructive discussion and debate about the future of cataloging and the catalog, from FRBR and RDA on cataloging rules (with a focus on content) to next-generation discovery interfaces for the catalog (with a focus on carrier). A topic that is not receiving as much attention in the midst of these discussions is the scope of the library catalog. This article offers an opinion on the scope of the catalog in a research library, and the role of the catalogers in this time of transition. The article will also elicit some practical approaches that catalogers can take to reposition the catalog for improved user-access and resource discovery.

Authors

Types