Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Tillett, B.B."
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × year_i:[1990 TO 2000}
  1. Tillett, B.B.: ¬A taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (1991) 0.00
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = product of:
          0.013257373 = sum of:
            0.013257373 = weight(_text_:a in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013257373 = score(doc=6686,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A bibliographic relationship is an association between two or more bibliographic items or works. In an effort to provide the theoretical base for a conceptual model of the library catalog, past and future, the bibliographic relationship is examined here in detail. In this first of a series of reports, a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships is derived from an analysis of cataloging rules and types of bibliographic items.
    Type
    a
  2. Tillett, B.B.: ¬A summary of the treatment of bibliographic relationships in cataloguing rules (1991) 0.00
    0.0023435948 = product of:
      0.0046871896 = sum of:
        0.0046871896 = product of:
          0.009374379 = sum of:
            0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009374379 = score(doc=6739,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Reports on an analytical study to examine the cataloguing rules in AACR2 to reveal practices for indicating bibliographic relationships in cataloguing records and identify types of relationships. Relationships defined and investigated were: equivalence; derivative; descriptive; whole-part; accompanying; sequential; and shared characteristic relationships.Each type of bibliographic relationship has had several linking devices used to connect bibliographic entities. The technology available to create and maintain a catalogue has greatly influenced the types of linking devices included in the catalogue and prescribed in cataloguing rules
    Type
    a
  3. Tillett, B.B.: Catalog it once for all : a history of cooperative cataloging in the United States prior to 1967 (before MARC) (1993) 0.00
    0.0020506454 = product of:
      0.004101291 = sum of:
        0.004101291 = product of:
          0.008202582 = sum of:
            0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008202582 = score(doc=575,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 575, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=575)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Librarians in the United States always seem to be trying to reduce their costs and share resources through various centralized or cooperative endeavors. Early cooperative cataloging efforts, prior to 1967 when the MARC format made its appearance and automation took off, clearly recognized the need to create a shared national resource of bibliographic records. Yet, the dreams of cataloging it once for all turned into nightmares over and over as many schemes were tried and failed. However, some schemes succeeded and millions of items were cataloged through these early efforts. The promise of our preliminary steps in cooperative cataloging during the pre-automation era sparked our imaginations and raised our hopes for the future.
    Type
    a