Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"r"
  1. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.00
    0.0017848461 = product of:
      0.010709076 = sum of:
        0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010709076 = score(doc=1271,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    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.
  2. Lubetzky, S.: Principles of cataloging (2001) 0.00
    0.0016629322 = product of:
      0.009977593 = sum of:
        0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009977593 = score(doc=2627,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    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.
  3. Hoogcarspel, A.: Guidelines for cataloging monographic electronic texts at the Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities (1994) 0.00
    0.0014873719 = product of:
      0.008924231 = sum of:
        0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 5937) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008924231 = score(doc=5937,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 5937, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5937)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
  4. Functional requirements for bibliographic records : Final report (1998) 0.00
    0.0014873719 = product of:
      0.008924231 = sum of:
        0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 6418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008924231 = score(doc=6418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 6418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6418)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Content
    Liegt inzwischen auch in deutscher Übersetzung vor: Funktionelle Anforderungen an bibliografische Datensätze
  5. Chapman, A.: Quality of bibliographic records in a shared cataloguing database : a case study using the BLCMP database (1993) 0.00
    0.0010411602 = product of:
      0.006246961 = sum of:
        0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006246961 = score(doc=740,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 740, 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=740)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
  6. Riva, P.; Boeuf, P. le; Zumer, M.: IFLA Library Reference Model : a conceptual model for bibliographic information (2017) 0.00
    0.0010411602 = product of:
      0.006246961 = sum of:
        0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 5179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006246961 = score(doc=5179,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 5179, 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=5179)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Definition of a conceptual reference model to provide a framework for the analysis of non-administrative metadata relating to library resources. The resulting model definition was approved by the FRBR Review Group (November 2016), and then made available to the Standing Committees of the Sections on Cataloguing and Subject Analysis & Access, as well as to the ISBD Review Group, for comment in December 2016. The final document was approved by the IFLACommittee on Standards (August 2017).
  7. Nicholson, D.: Cataloguing the Internet : CATRIONA feasibility study (1995) 0.00
    8.9242304E-4 = product of:
      0.005354538 = sum of:
        0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 6296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005354538 = score(doc=6296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 6296, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6296)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Program 30(1996) no.4, S.415-416