Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.022510704 = product of:
  0.045021407 = sum of:
    0.045021407 = product of:
      0.090042815 = sum of:
        0.090042815 = weight(_text_:subject in 2785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090042815 = score(doc=2785,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 2785, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.02227982 = product of:
  0.04455964 = sum of:
    0.04455964 = product of:
      0.08911928 = sum of:
        0.08911928 = weight(_text_:subject in 7328) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08911928 = score(doc=7328,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 7328, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7328)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Evaluates the available subject-heading lists and critically examines 100 monographs recently catalogues by the Services documentaires multimedia asserting that French-language subject access tools do not meet the needs of users in public and school libraries. Reviews the development of subject catalogues in North America and suggests recommendations aimed at creating a vocabulary better adapted to the needs of users

0.019294888 = product of:
  0.038589776 = sum of:
    0.038589776 = product of:
      0.07717955 = sum of:
        0.07717955 = weight(_text_:subject in 1845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07717955 = score(doc=1845,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 1845, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1845)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.019294888 = product of:
  0.038589776 = sum of:
    0.038589776 = product of:
      0.07717955 = sum of:
        0.07717955 = weight(_text_:subject in 18) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07717955 = score(doc=18,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 18, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=18)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.016709864 = product of:
  0.03341973 = sum of:
    0.03341973 = product of:
      0.06683946 = sum of:
        0.06683946 = weight(_text_:subject in 450) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06683946 = score(doc=450,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 450, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=450)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Canadian library records, bilingual by statute, are created according to a common set of rules and standards. Subject access to the catalogue remains language dependent. Even searches by classification in some OPACs rely first on an alphabetical index as an entering key. Fully bilingual OPACs with authority control and reciprocal references in one file have yet to appear. Thus far the Canadian Workplace Automation Research Center has produced ISIR/SIRI with an online bilingual thesaurus. The National Library of Canada has developed withh DOBIS a bilingual system providing automatic linkages between records and authority files. But true bilingual searching (a search in one language retrieving records in both languages) could be achieved by a built-in automatic translation module. Total accommodation of diacritical marks by terminal keyboards and display monitors is also a challenge to be met.

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Subject Control in Online Catalogs

0.014381561 = product of:
  0.028763123 = sum of:
    0.028763123 = product of:
      0.057526246 = sum of:
        0.057526246 = weight(_text_:subject in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057526246 = score(doc=549,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.35344344 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

LCSH is known as such since 1975. It always has created headings to serve the LC collections instead of a theoretical basis. It started to replace cross reference codes by thesaural codes in 1986, in a mechanical fashion. It was in no way transformed into a thesaurus. Its encyclopedic coverage, its pre-coordinate concepts make it substantially distinct, considering that thesauri usually map a restricted field of knowledge and use uniterms. The questions raised are whether the new symbols comply with thesaurus standards and if they are true to one or to several models. Explanations and definitions from other lists of subject headings and thesauri, literature in the field of classification and subject indexing will provide some answers. For instance, see refers from a subject heading not used to another or others used. Exceptionally it will lead from a specific term to a more general one. Some equate a see reference with the equivalence relationship. Such relationships are pointed by USE in LCSH. See also references are made from the broader subject to narrower parts of it and also between associated subjects. They suggest lateral or vertical connexions as well as reciprocal relationships. They serve a coordination purpose for some, lay down a methodical search itinerary for others. Since their inception in the 1950's thesauri have been devised for indexing and retrieving information in the fields of science and technology. Eventually they attended to a number of social sciences and humanities. Research derived from thesauri was voluminous. Numerous guidelines are designed. They did not discriminate between the "hard" sciences and the social sciences. RT relationships are widely but diversely used in numerous controlled vocabularies. LCSH's aim is to achieve a list almost free of RT and SA references. It thus restricts relationships to BT/NT, USE and UF. This raises the question as to whether all fields of knowledge can "fit" in the Procrustean bed of RT/NT, i.e., genus/species relationships. Standard codes were devised. It was soon realized that BT/NT, well suited to the genus/species couple could not signal a whole-part relationship. In LCSH, BT and NT function as reciprocals, the whole-part relationship is taken into account by ISO. It is amply elaborated upon by authors. The part-whole connexion is sometimes studied apart. The decision to replace cross reference codes was an improvement. Relations can now be distinguished through the distinct needs of numerous fields of knowledge are not attended to. Topic inclusion, and topic-subtopic, could provide the missing link where genus/species or whole/part are inadequate. Distinct codes, BT/NT and whole/part, should be provided. Sorting relationships with mechanical means can only lead to confusion.

0.012331083 = product of:
  0.024662167 = sum of:
    0.024662167 = product of:
      0.049324334 = sum of:
        0.049324334 = weight(_text_:22 in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324334 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 310, 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=310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 1.2007 19:12:22