Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0149503 = product of:
  0.0299006 = sum of:
    0.0299006 = product of:
      0.1196024 = sum of:
        0.1196024 = weight(_text_:authors in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1196024 = score(doc=2506,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

This paper looks at approaches to name authority control in repository contexts and describes the work of the Names project, which has been funded to investigate issues surrounding the identification of individuals and institutions within repositories of research outputs in the United Kingdom. The problem of uniquely identifying authors has been with us ever since books have been catalogued. National libraries have been creating name authority files for authors of books for many years, starting with card catalogues and now maintaining electronic files in MARC format. However, authority files for the creators of journal articles do not tend to exist in library systems. The increasing use of subject-based and institutional repositories to hold working papers, reports, research data, and pre-refereed and post-referred versions of articles has led to a corresponding rise in the number of authors identified in such systems. Without having a means of uniquely and unambiguously identifying the creators of materials in repositories, it becomes difficult to be sure whether all the materials related to a particular author will be correctly associated with that individual. Names of authors may be entered in more than one way, or more than one author may have exactly the same name. This article looks at recent attempts to address this problem in the repository environment and goes on to explain the approach that is planned to be taken in the Names project.

0.010465209 = product of:
  0.020930419 = sum of:
    0.020930419 = product of:
      0.083721675 = sum of:
        0.083721675 = weight(_text_:authors in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083721675 = score(doc=698,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 698, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=698)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The concept of authorship is central to how libraries organize their collections. But libraries do not only collect resources created by individuals, they also collect documents issued by organizations. Library catalogers use the concept of a "corporate body" to treat organizations as authors for the purpose of making their documents discoverable to users. This essay looks at the key features of establishing authorized access points (AAPs) and applying authority control for corporate bodies. It examines how practices with regard to corporate bodies have changed over time and considers the changes catalogers might expect to see in the future.

0.00897018 = product of:
  0.01794036 = sum of:
    0.01794036 = product of:
      0.07176144 = sum of:
        0.07176144 = weight(_text_:authors in 5667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07176144 = score(doc=5667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5667)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Forty years ago the ICCP in Paris laid the foundations of international co-operation in descriptive cataloging without explicitly speaking of authority control. Some of the factors in the evolution of authority control are the development of catalogs (from card catalog to local automation, to today's OPAC on the Web) and services provided by libraries (from individual service to local users to system networks, to the World Wide Web), as well as international agreements on cataloging (from Paris Principles to the UBC programme, to the report on Mandatory data elements for internationally shared resource authority records). This evolution progressed from the principle of uniform heading to the definition of authority entries and records, and from the responsibility of national bibliographic agencies for the form of the names of their own authors to be shared internationally to the concept of authorized equivalent heading. Some issues of the present state are the persisting differences among national rules and the aim of respecting both local culture and language and international readability.

0.008821373 = product of:
  0.017642746 = sum of:
    0.017642746 = product of:
      0.03528549 = sum of:
        0.03528549 = weight(_text_:22 in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03528549 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.00747515 = product of:
  0.0149503 = sum of:
    0.0149503 = product of:
      0.0598012 = sum of:
        0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0598012 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00747515 = product of:
  0.0149503 = sum of:
    0.0149503 = product of:
      0.0598012 = sum of:
        0.0598012 = weight(_text_:authors in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0598012 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2374559 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05208721 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.