-
Managing cataloging and the organization of information : philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century (2000)
0.06
0.062642336 = product of:
0.15660584 = sum of:
0.018946756 = weight(_text_:und in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018946756 = score(doc=238,freq=24.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
0.040965587 = weight(_text_:formen in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040965587 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17464934 = queryWeight, product of:
6.0656753 = idf(docFreq=278, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.23455907 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.0656753 = idf(docFreq=278, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
0.021517023 = weight(_text_:der in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021517023 = score(doc=238,freq=30.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.33454654 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
30.0 = termFreq=30.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
0.018946756 = weight(_text_:und in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018946756 = score(doc=238,freq=24.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2968967 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
0.008538926 = weight(_text_:des in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008538926 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.10708885 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
0.008980035 = weight(_text_:in in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008980035 = score(doc=238,freq=38.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.22928205 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
38.0 = termFreq=38.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
0.0318839 = weight(_text_:elektronischen in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0318839 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15407887 = queryWeight, product of:
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.20693234 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
0.0068268585 = product of:
0.013653717 = sum of:
0.013653717 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013653717 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(8/20)
- Footnote
- Rez. in ZfBB 51(2004) H.1, S.54-55 (G. Pflug): "Unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der Informationstechnologie auf den Bibliotheksbereich nimmt die Katalogisierung eine Schlüsselstellung ein. Das vorliegende Werk gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Der erste Abschnitt ist mit »National Libraries« überschrieben, befasst sich jedoch nur mit der Library of Congress und der National Library of Canada. Ihm folgen Artikel über »Libraries around the world«. Dabei fälltjedoch auf, dass diese Studien zwar Bibliotheken in Großbritannien, Australien, Mittel- und Südamerika und selbst Afrika (Botswana) behandeln, nicht jedoch aus Kontinentaleuropa, trotz entsprechender Aktivitäten etwa in den Niederlanden, in Frankreich oder den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Nur DOBIS/LIBIS wird erwähnt, aber nur, weil es für kurze Zeit die kanadische Entwicklung beeinflusst hat. Im zweiten Teil kommen Katalogisierungsfachleute aus vier Spezial- und neun akademischen Bibliotheken - ausschließlich aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien - zu Wort. So enthält das Werk in 22 Beispielen Berichte über individuelle und regionale Lösungen. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, zu welchen Änderungen in der Katalogisierungs- und Sacherschließungspraxis die neuen elektronischen Techniken geführt haben. So streben z.B. die englischen Hochschulbibliotheken ein koordiniertes System an. Mit dem Übergang der British Library zu MARC 21 wird das Katalogsystem in Großbritannien nachhaltig beeinflusst - um nur zwei nahe liegende Beispiele zu nennen. Insgesamt werden drei Aspekte behandelt, die Automatisierungstechnik; die dabei einzusetzende Kooperation und das Outsourcing - nicht nur durch Übernahme von Daten anderer Bibliotheken oder durch Verbundsysteme, vor allem der Library of Congress, sondern auch durch Buchhandelsfirmen wie Blackwell North America Authority Control Service. In der Frage der Sacherschließung befassen sich die Beiträge mit den im amerikanischen Bereich üblichen Klassifikationssystemen, vor allem der Colon Classification, Dewey in seinen beiden Formen oder der Library of Congress Classification. Für die deutsche Diskussion sind diese Aspekte vor allem wegen des Übergangs der Deutschen Bibliothek in ihrer Nationalbibliografie zur DDC von großem Interesse (vgl. Magda Heiner-Freiling: Die DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. In Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 15. 2003, Nr. 3, S. 8-13). Doch stellen auch die unterschiedlichen Überlegungen zur alphabetischen Katalogisierung, verbunden mit den da zugehörigen Datenbanken, einen interessanten Beitrag zur augenblicklichen Diskussion in Deutschland dar, da auch hier seit einigen Jahren die Katalogisierung nach RAK und ihre Ablösung eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst hat, wie unter anderem der zusammenfassende Beitrag von Elisabeth Niggemann in: Dialog mit Bibliotheken (15. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 4-8) zeigt. Auch die angloamerikanischen und die mit ihnen zum Beispiel in Mexiko, Südamerika oder Australien verbundenen Bibliotheken - das zeigt das Buch deutlich - diskutieren die Frage der alphabetischen Katalogisierung kontrovers. So werden z.B. neben den dominanten AACR-Regeln mit ihrer Weiterentwicklung mehr als zehn andere Katalogisierungssysteme und rund 20 Online-Datenbanken behandelt. Damit liefert das Buch für die Diskussion in Deutschland und die anstehenden Entscheidungen in seiner Grundtendenz wie in den unterschiedlichen-auch widersprüchlichen-Aspekten dereinzelnen Beiträge wertvolle Anregungen."
-
Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century (2011)
0.02
0.020953866 = product of:
0.08381546 = sum of:
0.023904746 = weight(_text_:und in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023904746 = score(doc=4530,freq=52.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.37458867 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
52.0 = termFreq=52.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
0.019048017 = weight(_text_:der in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019048017 = score(doc=4530,freq=32.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.29615843 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
32.0 = termFreq=32.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
0.023904746 = weight(_text_:und in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023904746 = score(doc=4530,freq=52.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.37458867 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
52.0 = termFreq=52.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
0.010350741 = weight(_text_:des in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010350741 = score(doc=4530,freq=4.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.12981129 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
0.006607215 = weight(_text_:in in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006607215 = score(doc=4530,freq=28.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.1686982 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
28.0 = termFreq=28.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
0.25 = coord(5/20)
- Abstract
- Library specialists in the cataloging and metadata professions have a greater purpose than simply managing information and connecting users to resources. There is a deeper and more profound impact that comes of their work: preservation of the human record. Conversations with Catalogers in the 21st Century contains four chapters addressing broad categories of issues that catalogers and metadata librarians are currently facing. Every important topic is covered, such as changing metadata practices, standards, data record structures, data platforms, and user expectations, providing both theoretical and practical information. Guidelines for dealing with present challenges are based on fundamentals from the past. Recommendations on training staff, building new information platforms of digital library resources, documenting new cataloging and metadata competencies, and establishing new workflows enable a real-world game plan for improvement.
- Footnote
- Rez. in Mitt VÖB 64(2011) H.1, S.151-153 (S. Breitling): "Wie sieht die Rolle der Katalogisierung im 21. Jahrhundert aus? In diversen Blogs und Mailinglisten wird darüber seit geraumer Zeit diskutiert. Der Bereich Katalogisierung befindet sich in einer Phase tiefgreifenden Wandels, ausgelöst durch eine Vielzahl von Faktoren, von denen veränderte Nutzererwartungen bei der Recherche und die wachsende Menge an neuen zu katalogisierenden Materialien (e-Books, Web-Ressourcen etc.) und Formaten nur zwei Aspekte darstellen. Das technische Umfeld wird nicht zuletzt durch fortgeschrittene Möglichkeiten im Bereich Retrieval und Präsentation geprägt. Wie schafft man es, dass Katalogisierung als Teil des gesamten Bibliothekswesens relevant und zeitgemäß bleibt? Welche der in Jahrzehnten Katalogisierungspraxis erarbeiteten Standards sind erhaltenswert, und welche sind im Hinblick auf den Fortschritt der IT und ein mögliches Semantic Web vielleicht gar nicht mehr nötig oder müssen an die Gegebenheiten angepasst werden? Mit diesen und anderen Fragen beschäftigt sich die Aufsatzsammlung "Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century". In der Community bekannte Personen wie Martha Yee, Christine Schwartz oder James Weinheimer kommen zu Wort, aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum Bernhard Eversberg, Entwickler des Bibliothekssystems Allegro.
Ein großes Thema ist erwartungsgemäß das neue Regelwerk RDA, das, um es vorwegzunehmen, bei den drei Autoren, die sich ausschließlich diesem Gesichtspunkt widmen, vorwiegend auf Kritik stößt. Erstmals publiziert wird an dieser Stelle eine Studie der Herausgeberin Elaine R. Sanchez, die ein Meinungsbild der einschlägig tätigen Bibliothekarinnen (wie z.B. Titelaufnehmerinnen, Systembibliothekarinnen) zum Umstieg auf RDA zeichnet. Wie in den anderen Kapiteln liegt auch hier der Schwerpunkt auf dem US- bzw. anglo-amerikanischen Raum, was einen Blick über den eigenen Tellerrand ermöglicht und eine Grundstimmung einfängt, der man auch in Europa und hierzulande angesichts internationaler Kooperationen und zunehmend globaler Ausrichtung bei Standards und Regelwerken Beachtung schenken sollte. Andere Beiträge setzen sich mit Themen auseinander, die ebenfalls die Rolle der Katalogisierung unter sich ständig und rasant verändernden Bedingungen betreffen: die Bedeutung von bibliographischen Standards (und Qualitätsstandards im besonderen) im Zeitalter von Google Books, das Titeldaten aus Bibliotheken "nur noch" in einem Mashup mit anderen algorithmisch aufbereiteten Daten verarbeitet; das sich wandelnde Berufsbild von Titelaufnehmerinnen, die mit traditionellen Materialien und Datenformaten arbeiten, hin zu Metadaten-Spezialisten, die sich durch Kenntnisse digitaler Objekte und der entsprechenden Formate wie etwa Dublin Core auszeichnen; Anpassung von Workflows an die technischen Möglichkeiten der Automatisierung und Digitalisierung; Anforderungen an Ausbildung und berufliche Weiterbildung von Katalogisierungsexpertinnen etc. Eine chronologische Bibliographie von Literatur mit Bezug auf Bibliotheken und Katalogisierung von 1800 bis heute beschließt den Band.
Eine wiederkehrende positive Einschätzung ist, dass Katalogisiererinnen sich in der jüngeren Geschichte schon mehrmals Wandel und Veränderungen stellen mußten (z.B. Umstieg von Zettelkatalog auf EDV) und dies auch stets gut gemeistert haben. Allerdings muss man hier anmerken, dass neue Entwicklungen erst mit (großer) Verzögerung nachvollzogen wurden und Bibliotheken heute nicht mehr die einzigen sind, die bibliographische Daten bereitstellen. Es gilt also mehr denn je, sich als ein Player unter vielen zu positionieren und die Rolle neu zu definieren, die Bibliotheken (und vor allem die Katalogisierung als Rückgrat der Informationsversorgung) in einer veränderten Wissens- und Informationslandschaft spielen. Der vorliegende Titel kann hierzu Anregungen und Denkanstöße aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln, wenn auch keine wirklich revolutionären Ansätze oder gar fertigen Lösungen liefern."
-
Goossens, P.; Mazur-Rzesos, E.: Hierarchical relationships in bibliographic descriptions : problem analysis (1982)
0.00
0.0036927133 = product of:
0.036927134 = sum of:
0.026937963 = weight(_text_:der in 4619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026937963 = score(doc=4619,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.4188313 = fieldWeight in 4619, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4619)
0.009989171 = weight(_text_:in in 4619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009989171 = score(doc=4619,freq=4.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 4619, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4619)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Beitrag zur Frage der Bibliographic relationships
- Series
- Veröffentlichungen der Gesamthochschulbibliothek Essen; 2
- Source
- Hierarchical relationships in bibliographic records, INTERMARC software subgroup seminar 4, Essen, 25.3.-27.3.1981
-
Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001)
0.00
0.003046978 = product of:
0.03046978 = sum of:
0.00706341 = weight(_text_:in in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00706341 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
0.023406371 = product of:
0.046812743 = sum of:
0.046812743 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046812743 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
-
Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2005)
0.00
0.0019632746 = product of:
0.019632746 = sum of:
0.014638159 = weight(_text_:des in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014638159 = score(doc=1086,freq=2.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.18358089 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
0.0049945856 = weight(_text_:in in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0049945856 = score(doc=1086,freq=4.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos
- Footnote
- Beitrag des "EBSCO Leadership Seminar, Boston, 16 January 2005"
-
Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006)
0.00
0.0019480734 = product of:
0.019480733 = sum of:
0.005827016 = weight(_text_:in in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005827016 = score(doc=114,freq=4.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
0.013653717 = product of:
0.027307434 = sum of:
0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027307434 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Theimer, S.: ¬A cataloger's resolution to become more creative : how and why (2012)
0.00
0.001777404 = product of:
0.01777404 = sum of:
0.0041203224 = weight(_text_:in in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0041203224 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
0.013653717 = product of:
0.027307434 = sum of:
0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027307434 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Creativity is now a core requirement for successful organizations. Libraries, like all organizations, need to produce and utilize new ideas to improve user service and experiences. With changes in cataloging such as Resource Description and Access (RDA), the opportunity to rethink cataloging practices is here now. Everyone has creative potential, although catalogers may have both a personality and work environment that make it more difficult. To be able to maximize creative capacity, catalogers need the proper work environment, support from their organization, and a plan for accomplishing creative goals. Given that environment, catalogers may create ideas that will shape the future. (RDA).
- Date
- 29. 5.2015 11:08:22
-
Bianchini, C.; Guerrini, M.: From bibliographic models to cataloguing rules : remarks on FRBR, ICP, ISBD, and RDA and the relationships between them (2009)
0.00
0.0015231665 = product of:
0.015231665 = sum of:
0.011111342 = weight(_text_:der in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011111342 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.17275909 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
0.0041203224 = weight(_text_:in in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0041203224 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- This article discusses the changes that are occurring in the world of cataloguing. It argues that these changes need to be coordinated. It also discusses the feature of current OPACs, FRBR, the Paris Principles and its proposed replacement (ICP), AACR2 and its proposed replacement (RDA), ISBD, and the relationships between and among these standards. It argues that the syntax of ISBD is an essential component of RDA and all future international and national cataloguing codes.
- Theme
- Geschichte der Kataloge
-
Lubetzky, S.: Principles of cataloging (2001)
0.00
0.0014517618 = product of:
0.014517617 = sum of:
0.007936673 = weight(_text_:der in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007936673 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.12339935 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
0.006580944 = weight(_text_:in in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006580944 = score(doc=2627,freq=10.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.
- Theme
- Geschichte der Kataloge
-
Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007)
0.00
0.0011825415 = product of:
0.011825414 = sum of:
0.004762004 = weight(_text_:der in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004762004 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.07403961 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
0.00706341 = weight(_text_:in in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00706341 = score(doc=1271,freq=32.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
32.0 = termFreq=32.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.
- Content
- Vgl. dazu auch die Forderungen der Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF), Katalogdaten grundsätzlich zur weiteren Nutzung freizugeben, unter: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2007/12/15/open-knowledge-foundation-fordert-freie-katalogdaten/.
-
Fuller, E.E.: Variation in personal names in works represented in the catalog (1989)
0.00
6.8327825E-4 = product of:
0.013665565 = sum of:
0.013665565 = weight(_text_:in in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013665565 = score(doc=439,freq=22.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.34891498 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Recent research suggests that many authority records might be unnecessary in online systems with sophisticated programming. One problem in determining which names can be used without full authority records and the references they provide is that there has been little study of the names themselves, and patterns of variation are unknown. In a random sample of persons with entries in the University of Chicago library general catalog, more than 80% had names appearing in only one form in all works. The study also catagorizes the differences among the forms of those names that do appear in more than one way.
- Footnote
- Simultaneously published as Authority Control in the Online Environment: Considerations and Practices
-
Taniguchi, S.: Conceptual modeling of component parts of bibliographic resources in cataloging (2003)
0.00
5.297558E-4 = product of:
0.010595115 = sum of:
0.010595115 = weight(_text_:in in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010595115 = score(doc=4442,freq=18.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.27051896 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- This paper examines differences in modeling component parts of bibliographic resources between two conceptual models in cataloging, as a continuation of the previous study that proposed a model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity. First, the model by IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) was examined from the viewpoint of modeling component parts when each part in itself is a resource to be described. The examination is done on two types of component parts, a content part and a document part, which are different in terms of whether they are physically independent. This results in different structures for these two component types. Secondly, by applying the viewpoint to the model that the author proposed earlier, it has become clear that both component types can be modeled basically in the same manner, indicating the model's superiority in consistency to the FRBR model in this respect.
-
Tillett, B.B.: ¬A summary of the treatment of bibliographic relationships in cataloguing rules (1991)
0.00
5.2647555E-4 = product of:
0.010529511 = sum of:
0.010529511 = weight(_text_:in in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010529511 = score(doc=6739,freq=10.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- 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
-
Wynne, S.C.; Hanscom, M.J.: ¬The effect of next-generation catalogs on catalogers and cataloging functions in academic libraries (2011)
0.00
5.0463446E-4 = product of:
0.010092689 = sum of:
0.010092689 = weight(_text_:in in 1889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010092689 = score(doc=1889,freq=12.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 1889, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1889)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Next-generation catalogs or discovery tools (NGCs) overlay existing bibliographic data and repackage it in displays that differ from the traditional catalog. Many implementations of NGCs have revealed errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the underlying data that had not been apparent in the traditional catalog. This study explored the effect of NGCs on cataloging functions and catalogers in academic libraries, examining catalogers' participation in the selection and implementation processes, identifying and correcting data problems, changes to procedures or workflow, and staffing.
-
Taniguchi, S.: ¬A conceptual model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity in cataloging (2002)
0.00
4.6720068E-4 = product of:
0.009344013 = sum of:
0.009344013 = weight(_text_:in in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009344013 = score(doc=4463,freq=14.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- This paper proposes a conceptual model for cataloging which gives primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity, with the aim of approaching critical issues in cataloging, such as the so-called "format variations" and "content versus carrier" issues. The term "expression" is defined as "the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic notation, etc." In this paper, the model by the IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is first re-examined and at the same time the outline of a new model giving primacy to expression-level entity is illustrated by indicating differences from the FRBR model. Second, by applying the concept "user tasks," found in the FRBR model, to the new model outlined in this paper, a scenario on how entities are used by users is created. Third, some examples of bibliographic record equivalents in line with the new model are shown.
-
Kemp, R.: Catalog/cataloging changes and Web 2.0 functionality : new directions for serials (2008)
0.00
4.1203224E-4 = product of:
0.008240645 = sum of:
0.008240645 = weight(_text_:in in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008240645 = score(doc=2254,freq=8.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- This article presents an overview of some of the important recent developments in cataloging theory and practice and online catalog design. Changes in cataloging theory and practice include the incorporation of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records principles into catalogs, the new Resource Description and Access cataloging manual, and the new CONSER Standard Record. Web 2.0 functionalities and advances in search technology and results displays are influencing online catalog design. The paper ends with hypothetical scenarios in which a catalog, enhanced by the developments described, fulfills the tasks of finding serials articles and titles.
-
Clarke, R.I.: Breaking records : the history of bibliographic records and their influence in conceptualizing bibliographic data (2015)
0.00
4.1203224E-4 = product of:
0.008240645 = sum of:
0.008240645 = weight(_text_:in in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008240645 = score(doc=1877,freq=8.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.
- Content
- Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Reshaping the Library Catalog: Selected Papers from the International Conference FSR2014 (Rome, February 27-28, 2014).
-
Borie, J.; MacDonald, K.; Sze, E.: Asserting catalogers' place in the "Value of Libraries" conversation (2015)
0.00
4.1203224E-4 = product of:
0.008240645 = sum of:
0.008240645 = weight(_text_:in in 1882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008240645 = score(doc=1882,freq=8.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 1882, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1882)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- Catalogers have a unique challenge to overcome in demonstrating the value of their services: the better they are at performing their work--making collections accessible and enabling user discovery--the more invisible their efforts are to users and administrators. Catalogers must participate more actively in the broader discussion and demonstration of library value undertaken by their colleagues, but to do so requires a framework and a common vocabulary shared by non-catalogers.
- Content
- Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Reshaping the Library Catalog: Selected Papers from the International Conference FSR2014 (Rome, February 27-28, 2014).
-
Seikel, M.: General notes in catalog records versus FRBR user tasks (2013)
0.00
4.1203224E-4 = product of:
0.008240645 = sum of:
0.008240645 = weight(_text_:in in 1929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008240645 = score(doc=1929,freq=8.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 1929, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1929)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- Abstract
- This article analyzes the literature concerning uses of notes in bibliographic records and also certain grammatical conventions used by catalogers to communicate information about the resources they are describing. It shows that these types of data do not aid the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) user tasks in the resource discovery process. It also describes how general notes are addressed in Resource Description Access (RDA), and advocates that cataloging practices involving most general notes and such conventions as bracketing and abbreviations should be discontinued with the widespread use of RDA.
-
Tillett, B.B.: ¬A taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (1991)
0.00
4.0780622E-4 = product of:
0.0081561245 = sum of:
0.0081561245 = weight(_text_:in in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0081561245 = score(doc=6686,freq=6.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
0.05 = coord(1/20)
- 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.
