Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0055089183 = product of:
  0.022035673 = sum of:
    0.022035673 = weight(_text_:information in 6523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022035673 = score(doc=6523,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.3592092 = fieldWeight in 6523, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6523)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Currently, few resources exist to guide libraries in the cataloguing of community information using the new USMARC Format for Cammunity Information (1993). In developing a community information database, Queens Borough Public Library, New York City, formulated their own cataloguing procedures for applying AACR2, LoC File Interpretations, and USMARC Format for Community Information to community information. Their practices include entering corporate names directly whenever possible and assigning LC subject headings for classes of persons and topics, adding neighbourhood level geographic subdivisions. The guidelines were specially designed to aid non cataloguers in cataloguing community information and have enabled library to maintain consistency in handling corporate names and in assigning subject headings, while creating database that is highly accessible to library staff and users

0.003606434 = product of:
  0.014425736 = sum of:
    0.014425736 = weight(_text_:information in 7683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014425736 = score(doc=7683,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 7683, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7683)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The chief of cataloguing policy and support office at the LoC presents her views on the usefulness of conceptual modelling in determining future directions for cataloguing and the MARC format. After describing the evolution of bibliographic processes, suggests usign the entity-relationship conceptual model to step back from how we record information today and start thinking about what information really means and why we provide it. Argues that now is the time to reexamine the basic principles which underpin Anglo-American cataloguing codes and that MARC formats should be looked at to see how they can evolve towards a future, improved structure for communicating bibliographic and authority information

0.0033653039 = product of:
  0.013461215 = sum of:
    0.013461215 = weight(_text_:information in 5753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013461215 = score(doc=5753,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 5753, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5753)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In their attempts to make materials more accessible, librarians are making catalogue entries unnecessarily complicated. Discusses the current scenario where catalogues appear to contain much information that is irrelevant to users. Provides an example of a future scenario where one composite catalogue record replaces a number of unitary records. Asks why the information that publishers have in machine readable form cannot be used with current technology to help simplify the entry

0.0029745363 = product of:
  0.011898145 = sum of:
    0.011898145 = weight(_text_:information in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011898145 = score(doc=677,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.

Series

Advances in information science

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.4, S.651-662

0.0029446408 = product of:
  0.011778563 = sum of:
    0.011778563 = weight(_text_:information in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011778563 = score(doc=1183,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper brings light to the existing practice of cataloging in the college libraries of Assam in terms of utilizing the MARC 21 standard and its structure, i.e., the tags, subfield codes, and indicators. Catalog records from six college libraries are collected and a survey is conducted to understand the local users' information requirements for the catalog. Places, where libraries have scope to improve and which divisions of tags could be more helpful for them in information retrieval, are identified and suggested. This study fulfilled the need for local-level assessment of the catalogs.

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 3033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=3033,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3033, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3033)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

Imprint

Oxford : Learned Information

Source

Navigating the networks: Proceedings of the 1994 Mid-year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. Ed.: D.L. Andersen et al

0.0025760243 = product of:
  0.010304097 = sum of:
    0.010304097 = weight(_text_:information in 1769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010304097 = score(doc=1769,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1769, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1769)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Bibliographic records should now be used in innovative end-user applications that enable users to learn about, discover and exploit available content, and this information should be interpreted and reused also beyond the library domain. New conceptual models such as FRBR offer the foundation for such developments. The main motivation for this research is to contribute to the adoption of the FRBR model in future bibliographic standards and systems, by analysing limitations in existing bibliographic information and looking for short- and long-term solutions that can improve the data quality in terms of expressing the FRBR model. Design/methodology/approach - MARC records in three collections (BIBSYS catalogue, Slovenian National Bibliography and BTJ catalogue) were first analysed by looking at statistics of field and subfield usage to determine common patterns that express FRBR. Based on this, different rules for interpreting the information were developed. Finally typical problems/errors found in MARC records were analysed. Findings - Different types of FRBR entity-relationship structures that typically can be found in bibliographic records are identified. Problems related to interpreting these from bibliographic records are analyzed. Frbrisation of consistent and complete MARC records is relatively successful, particularly if all entities are systematically described and relationships among them are clearly indicated. Research limitations/implications - Advanced matching was not used for clustering of identical entities. Practical implications - Cataloguing guidelines are proposed to enable better frbrisation of MARC records in the interim period, before new formats are developed and implemented. Originality/value - This is the first in depth analysis of manifestations embodying several expressions and of works and agents as subjects.

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=3750,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliographic control is the process of creation, exchange, preservation, and use of data about information resources. Formal bibliographic control has been practiced for millennia, but modern techniques began to be developed and implemented in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A series of cataloging codes characterized this period. These codes governed the creation of library catalogs, first in book form, then on cards, and finally in electronic formats, including MAchine-Readable Cataloging (MARC). The period was also characterized by the rise of shared cataloging programs, allowing the development of resource-saving copy cataloging procedures. Such programs were assisted by the development of cataloging networks such as OCLC and RLG. The twentieth century saw progress in the theory of bibliographic control, including the 1961 Paris Principles, culminating with the early twenty-first century Statement of International Cataloguing Principles and IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Toward the end of the period bibliographic control began to be applied to newly invented electronic media, as "metadata." Trends point toward continued development of collaborative and international approaches to bibliographic control.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0025239778 = product of:
  0.010095911 = sum of:
    0.010095911 = weight(_text_:information in 1589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010095911 = score(doc=1589,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1589, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1589)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Integration of library data into the Linked Data environment is a key issue in libraries and is approached on the basis of interoperability between library data conceptual models. Achieving interoperability for different representations of the same or related entities between the library and cultural heritage domains shall enhance rich bibliographic data reusability and support the development of new data-driven information services. This paper aims to contribute to the desired interoperability by attempting to map core semantic paths between the BIBFRAME and EDM conceptual models. BIBFRAME is developed by the Library of Congress to support transformation of legacy library data in MARC format into linked data. EDM is the model developed for and used in the Europeana Cultural Heritage aggregation portal.

Series

Communications in computer and information science; 478

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 7321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=7321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 7321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7321)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 12(1993) no.4, S.383-403

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 3081) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=3081,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3081, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3081)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the French reaction. Covers the entities considered for cataloguing; elements for identifying a document; access points; and authority records. Considers whether it is possible to reduce redundancies among the elements contained in bibliographic records caused by overlapping between the ISBD description, the access points and the coded information; and whether OPACs can be developed to present clearly to users various entities from the most general level to the most specific level

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 3858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=3858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3858)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 3339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=3339,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3339, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3339)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information technology and libraries. 14(1995) no.3, S.135-153

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 2773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=2773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2773)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 41(2015) no.4, S.23-29

0.0014872681 = product of:
  0.0059490725 = sum of:
    0.0059490725 = weight(_text_:information in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0059490725 = score(doc=5172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5172)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.