Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024742916 = product of:
  0.07422875 = sum of:
    0.07422875 = product of:
      0.111343116 = sum of:
        0.062952995 = weight(_text_:online in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062952995 = score(doc=366,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.4065447 = fieldWeight in 366, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=366)
        0.048390117 = weight(_text_:22 in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048390117 = score(doc=366,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 366, 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=366)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

LIAS, the Pennsylvania State University's (Penn State) integrated interactive online system, provides for messaging by the user to inform library staff of errors found in bibliographic records. The message is sent by use of the OOPS command, and results in a printout which is used by processing staff for online catalog maintenance. This article describes LIAS, the use of the OOPS command, the processing of the resulting OOPS reports, an assessment of the effect of its use, and some speculation on the expansion of the LIAS message system for use in catalog maintenance.

Date

7. 1.2007 13:22:30

0.021520268 = product of:
  0.0645608 = sum of:
    0.0645608 = product of:
      0.096841194 = sum of:
        0.0415382 = weight(_text_:online in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0415382 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2682499 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
        0.055302992 = weight(_text_:22 in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055302992 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 695, 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=695)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One of the most common errors in cataloguing library materials involves miscoding of the nonfiling indicator of title fields. Notes the extent of the problem and its negative effect on searching in the library's online catalogue and surveys how librarians have approached solutions to the problems. Describes how the major library automation system address this problem

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15

0.018631605 = product of:
  0.055894814 = sum of:
    0.055894814 = product of:
      0.08384222 = sum of:
        0.05805141 = weight(_text_:online in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05805141 = score(doc=908,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37489069 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
        0.025790809 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025790809 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The 2nd objective of the catalogue, adopted internationally in the Paris Principles, requires that cataloguing records for particular authors and particular works be easily identified (IFLA 1991). Analysis of the requirements of the 2nd objective of the catalogue shows that it has 2 components: a retrieval component; and a display component; and that it may be interpreted broadly to include related works and works about a work or author. Investigates 2 schemes for their contributions to the creation of online catalogue displays that meet 2nd objective requirements. Analyzes the catalogue filing rule scheme to show that author and work displays in card catalogues have been composed of many groups or classes of materials that may also be used to create organized displays in online catalogues. The groups used in the filing rule scheme are based on relationships among items. Proposes a scheme based on Tillet's bibliographic relationship taxonomy to discover additional types of relationships that may be used to group record in online catalogue displays leading to a new scheme for the creation of organized display in online catalogues. Incorporates elements from both the filing rule scheme and the bibliographic relationship taxonomy to create displays that meet the requirements of the 2nd objective more fully than either scheme does alone

0.016668199 = product of:
  0.050004594 = sum of:
    0.050004594 = product of:
      0.07500689 = sum of:
        0.04405792 = weight(_text_:online in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04405792 = score(doc=131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
        0.03094897 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03094897 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15433937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.008076874 = product of:
  0.02423062 = sum of:
    0.02423062 = product of:
      0.07269186 = sum of:
        0.07269186 = weight(_text_:online in 5315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07269186 = score(doc=5315,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.46943733 = fieldWeight in 5315, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5315)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0065270998 = product of:
  0.0195813 = sum of:
    0.0195813 = product of:
      0.058743894 = sum of:
        0.058743894 = weight(_text_:online in 3827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058743894 = score(doc=3827,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 3827, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3827)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Analytical references are needed in online library catalogues in order to provide volume specific author and title access to volumes in monographic series that have been catalogues as periodicals. Demonstrates how Oregon Health Science University Library has used the MARC bibliographic format to provide a record consisting almost entirely of indexed access points, in essence, many cross references assembled into one record, all pointing to a serial. Further proposes that AACR2 rules 13.2A and 21.30M1 be extended to prescribe analytical added entries as well as analytical references

0.0065270998 = product of:
  0.0195813 = sum of:
    0.0195813 = product of:
      0.058743894 = sum of:
        0.058743894 = weight(_text_:online in 911) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058743894 = score(doc=911,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.37936267 = fieldWeight in 911, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=911)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Rare book cataloguers have on various occasions expressed frustration that their carefully constructed rare book records 'disappear' into 'vanilla' catalogues designed and maintained by system vendors or by local system staff with only the most general knowledge of cataloguing. Reports the results of a 1993 survey of online systems used for rare book cataloguing and takes a first step toward making a set of recommendations regarding the display and indexing of rare book records in such systems

0.006144777 = product of:
  0.01843433 = sum of:
    0.01843433 = product of:
      0.055302992 = sum of:
        0.055302992 = weight(_text_:22 in 7234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055302992 = score(doc=7234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7234, 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=7234)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Cataloguing Australia. 22(1996) nos.1/2, S.21-25

0.005995524 = product of:
  0.017986571 = sum of:
    0.017986571 = product of:
      0.053959712 = sum of:
        0.053959712 = weight(_text_:online in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053959712 = score(doc=1149,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.34846687 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this article, we examine some of the proposals which have dealt with the problems in cataloging in 2 different technological contexts: printed-card catalogs and online catalogs. We first look at some of the measures which attempted to deal with the 'crisis in cataloging' at the Library of Congress in the 1940s. Then we address some of the current problems in cataloging in the era of OPACs. In particular, we discuss the extent to which minimal-level cataloging, as defines by AACR and implemented in the OCLC database, works for maps. Our discussion is organized around 2 main groups of access points: controlled vocabulary data elements, including name data elements, and free-text data elements. In closing, we discuss prospects that the next generation of online catalogs uisng the Z39.50 protocol and SGML format might offer to minimal-level cataloging for maps

0.0057112123 = product of:
  0.017133636 = sum of:
    0.017133636 = product of:
      0.051400907 = sum of:
        0.051400907 = weight(_text_:online in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051400907 = score(doc=1879,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.33194235 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.00537668 = product of:
  0.01613004 = sum of:
    0.01613004 = product of:
      0.048390117 = sum of:
        0.048390117 = weight(_text_:22 in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048390117 = score(doc=5162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17867287 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5162, 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=5162)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.3-28

0.0040794373 = product of:
  0.012238312 = sum of:
    0.012238312 = product of:
      0.036714934 = sum of:
        0.036714934 = weight(_text_:online in 2693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036714934 = score(doc=2693,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23710167 = fieldWeight in 2693, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2693)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The computer technology has considerable potential for better and more efficient management of knowledge and information sources. It is possible to provide easy, integrated and straightforward access to works of knowledge appearing in different expressions, editions, and manifestations (i.e., to bibliographic families). The online environment requires that the bibliographic record, as the surrogate for works of knowledge, should be restructured to provide users with a high-quality finding, identifying and collocating bibliographic tool. Unlike the existing flat structure, the multi-level structure of the Work Record would provide catalog users with the ability to discover if a work has been published/represented in different editions and manifestations and if there is any relationship among different works in a catalog or an the Internet. A similar structure for the Author Record would provide better access to different works by an author or about an author. A new structure for the bibliographic record is suggested through an analysis and categorization of the different relationships that exist in the bibliographic universe. A prototype catalogue developed based an the new structure (available an the Internet at: http://wilma.silas.unsw.edu.au/ students/rfattahi/super.html) illustrates the ability of providing multi-level, yet easy access to voluminous works and voluminous authors. Furthermore, the prototype catalog provides a clearer picture of bibliographic families and helps OPAC users decide an specific editions, manifestations, or items related to a specific work.

0.004038437 = product of:
  0.01211531 = sum of:
    0.01211531 = product of:
      0.03634593 = sum of:
        0.03634593 = weight(_text_:online in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03634593 = score(doc=3018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1548489 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051022716 = queryNorm
            0.23471867 = fieldWeight in 3018, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3018)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Surveys the status of catalguing practice in university libraries in 3 Asian developing countries, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Saudia Arabia. Examines the extent of the usage of international cataloguing tools such as cataloguing codes (AACR, ISBD), classification schemes (DDC, LCC) and subject heading lists (Sears, LCSH). Results indicate that there is an overall uniformity in the use of such tools, with a trend towards automation of cataloguing services with more access points for catalogue searching. Online catalogues are also replacing all traditional catalogue forms (card, printed, and microform). Findings show that, in using information technology in technical services, Malaysian university libraries are more advanced than those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia