Search (146 results, page 1 of 8)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Devaul, H.; Diekema, A.R.; Ostwald, J.: Computer-assisted assignment of educational standards using natural language processing (2011) 0.16
    0.16048539 = product of:
      0.21398051 = sum of:
        0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017839102 = score(doc=4199,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
        0.17564954 = weight(_text_:standards in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17564954 = score(doc=4199,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.7817061 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
        0.02049187 = product of:
          0.04098374 = sum of:
            0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04098374 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    Abstract
    Educational standards are a central focus of the current educational system in the United States, underpinning educational practice, curriculum design, teacher professional development, and high-stakes testing and assessment. Digital library users have requested that this information be accessible in association with digital learning resources to support teaching and learning as well as accountability requirements. Providing this information is complex because of the variability and number of standards documents in use at the national, state, and local level. This article describes a cataloging tool that aids catalogers in the assignment of standards metadata to digital library resources, using natural language processing techniques. The research explores whether the standards suggestor service would suggest the same standards as a human, whether relevant standards are ranked appropriately in the result set, and whether the relevance of the suggested assignments improve when, in addition to resource content, metadata is included in the query to the cataloging tool. The article also discusses how this service might streamline the cataloging workflow.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:25:32
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.395-405
  2. Lee, W.-C.: Conflicts of semantic warrants in cataloging practices (2017) 0.11
    0.10819927 = product of:
      0.1442657 = sum of:
        0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008582841 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3871, 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=3871)
        0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1106488 = score(doc=3871,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
        0.025034059 = product of:
          0.050068118 = sum of:
            0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050068118 = score(doc=3871,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    Abstract
    This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.
    Content
    Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.
  3. Willer, M.; Dunsire, G.: Bibliographic information organization in the Semantic Web (2013) 0.10
    0.09606951 = product of:
      0.12809268 = sum of:
        0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 2143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019191816 = score(doc=2143,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 2143, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2143)
        0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 2143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07824052 = score(doc=2143,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 2143, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2143)
        0.030660335 = product of:
          0.06132067 = sum of:
            0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 2143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06132067 = score(doc=2143,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 2143, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2143)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    Abstract
    New technologies will underpin the future generation of library catalogues. To facilitate their role providing information, serving users, and fulfilling their mission as cultural heritage and memory institutions, libraries must take a technological leap; their standards and services must be transformed to those of the Semantic Web. Bibliographic Information Organization in the Semantic Web explores the technologies that may power future library catalogues, and argues the necessity of such a leap. The text introduces international bibliographic standards and models, and fundamental concepts in their representation in the context of the Semantic Web. Subsequent chapters cover bibliographic information organization, linked open data, methodologies for publishing library metadata, discussion of the wider environment (museum, archival and publishing communities) and users, followed by a conclusion.
    Series
    Chandos information professional series
  4. Bourdenet, P.: ¬The catalog resisting the Web : an historical perspective (2012) 0.09
    0.091581956 = product of:
      0.12210928 = sum of:
        0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008582841 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 324, 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=324)
        0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09582469 = score(doc=324,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
        0.017701752 = product of:
          0.035403505 = sum of:
            0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035403505 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries are currently seeking to restructure their services and develop new cataloguing standards to position themselves on the web, which has become the main source of information and documents. The current upheaval within the profession is accompanied by the belief that libraries have a major role to play in identifying and supplying content due to their extensive high quality databases, which remain untapped despite efforts to increase catalog performance. They continue to rely on a strategy that has been proven successful since the mid-nineteenth century while seeking other models for their data. Today, they aim to exploit changes brought about by the web to improve content identification. The current intense debate on RDA implementation mirrors this desire for change. The debate is rooted in past efforts and yet tries to incite radical changes as it provides for interoperability from the creation of records through an object modeling in line with web standards and innovations. These innovations are presented through an historical perspective inspired by writings by librarians who are entrusted with helping in the development of bibliographic description standards.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.4, S.276-282
  5. Dobreski, B.; Kwasnik, B.: Changing depictions of persons in library practice : spirits, pseudonyms, and human books (2017) 0.09
    0.086559415 = product of:
      0.11541255 = sum of:
        0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01213797 = score(doc=4140,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
        0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07824052 = score(doc=4140,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
        0.025034059 = product of:
          0.050068118 = sum of:
            0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050068118 = score(doc=4140,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    Abstract
    Among knowledge organizing institutions, libraries have a rich history of depicting persons as information. From personal authority records to descriptions of oral history interviews, libraries have amassed data on persons from a variety of perspectives. Within this set of traditions, however, subtle but significant shifts in practice and conception have occurred, particularly concerning how persons are interpreted and depicted and how such depictions are justified. To explore these issues, we looked to four specific library traditions: authority work, community information, oral history, and "human library" events. Within these traditions, we identified six standards guiding the representation of persons. We performed a content analysis of these standards, along with a semantic alignment and comparison of descriptive elements. From this analysis, we reconstructed an historical timeline and a set of narratives capturing changing definitions of people, a shifting focus from names to identities, and an increasing acceptance of varied sources of justification. Findings show not only a number of critical variations within library practices but also practical and ethical issues concerning the responsibility of libraries as well as the redistribution and reuse of library data on the web.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Special Issue: ISKO-UK: Knowledge Organization, What's the Story? ISKO-UK Biennial Conference, 11-12 September, Canada Water Library & Culture Space, London, UK.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.8, S.656-667
  6. Mugridge, R.L.; Edmunds, J.: Batchloading MARC bibliographic records (2012) 0.09
    0.08503299 = product of:
      0.113377325 = sum of:
        0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012015978 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
        0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077454165 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 2600, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2600)
        0.023907183 = product of:
          0.047814365 = sum of:
            0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047814365 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    Abstract
    Research libraries are using batchloading to provide access to many resources that they would otherwise be unable to catalog given the staff and other resources available. To explore how such libraries are managing their batchloading activities, the authors conducted a survey of the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Directors of Large Research Libraries Interest Group member libraries. The survey addressed staffing, budgets, scope, workflow, management, quality standards, information technology support, collaborative efforts, and assessment of batchloading activities. The authors provide an analysis of the survey results along with suggestions for process improvements and future research.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Tosaka, Y.; Park, J.-r.: RDA: Resource description & access : a survey of the current state of the art (2013) 0.08
    0.08483097 = product of:
      0.11310796 = sum of:
        0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017165681 = score(doc=677,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
        0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07824052 = score(doc=677,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
        0.017701752 = product of:
          0.035403505 = sum of:
            0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035403505 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    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
  8. Escolano Rodrìguez, E.: RDA e ISBD : history of a relationship (2016) 0.08
    0.07701033 = product of:
      0.15402067 = sum of:
        0.13277857 = weight(_text_:standards in 2951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13277857 = score(doc=2951,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 2951, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2951)
        0.021242103 = product of:
          0.042484205 = sum of:
            0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 2951) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042484205 = score(doc=2951,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 2951, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2951)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article attempts to clarify the nature of the relationship between the RDA and ISBD standards in order to be able to understand their differences and vinculations, as well as to remove some misinterpretations about this relationship. With this objective, some aspects that can affect their differences, such as types of standards, points of view, scope, origin, policies of the creation and development group or organization in charge that logically justify these differences, are analyzed. These have not presented any obstacles for a correct relationship with the help of the Linked Data technology. In this article, account is also given of the work done of mappings and alignments between the standards in order to contribute properly to the Semantic Web. This knowledge is the one fundamental required for current catalogers to use standards judiciously, knowledgeably and responsibly.
  9. Dobreski, B.: Authority and universalism : conventional values in descriptive catalog codes (2017) 0.08
    0.07589395 = product of:
      0.1517879 = sum of:
        0.117099695 = weight(_text_:standards in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.117099695 = score(doc=3876,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5211374 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
        0.03468821 = product of:
          0.06937642 = sum of:
            0.06937642 = weight(_text_:organization in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06937642 = score(doc=3876,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.38596115 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely
    Content
    Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.
  10. Ginther, C.; Schuh, S.: Redefining bibliographical standards (2015) 0.07
    0.06746237 = product of:
      0.13492474 = sum of:
        0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 2989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02427594 = score(doc=2989,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 2989, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2989)
        0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 2989) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1106488 = score(doc=2989,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 2989, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2989)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Source
    Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff
  11. Michetti, G.: Unneutrality of archival standards and processes (2015) 0.07
    0.06746237 = product of:
      0.13492474 = sum of:
        0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 2990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02427594 = score(doc=2990,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 2990, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2990)
        0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 2990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1106488 = score(doc=2990,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 2990, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2990)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Source
    Re:inventing information science in the networked society: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science, Zadar/Croatia, 19th-21st May 2015. Eds.: F. Pehar, C. Schloegl u. C. Wolff
  12. Rigby, C.: Nunavut libraries online establish Inuit language bibliographic cataloging standards : promoting indigenous language using a commercial ILS (2015) 0.07
    0.06715959 = product of:
      0.13431919 = sum of:
        0.10953673 = weight(_text_:standards in 2182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10953673 = score(doc=2182,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 2182, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2182)
        0.024782453 = product of:
          0.049564905 = sum of:
            0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 2182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049564905 = score(doc=2182,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 2182, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2182)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This article examines shared cataloging practices in Nunavut, Canada, where Inuit form 85% of the general population and three official languages, including Inuit language (Inuktitut/Inuinnaqtun), English and French, are used in government and daily discourse. The partners in the Nunavut Libraries Online consortium, together with the Nunavut Government translation bureau, have developed a common vocabulary for creating bibliographic records in Inuktitut, including syllabic script, and used this to create bibliographic cataloging standards, under the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition, for creating multilingual and multiscript MARC-compliant, Integrated Library System-compatible records that accurately reflect the multilingual content of material published in and about Nunavut and Inuit.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Indigenous Knowledge Organization. Vgl.: 10.1080/01639374.2015.1008165.
  13. Rafferty, P.: FRBR, information, and intertextuality (2015) 0.06
    0.056495186 = product of:
      0.11299037 = sum of:
        0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 5533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017165681 = score(doc=5533,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 5533, 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=5533)
        0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 5533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09582469 = score(doc=5533,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 5533, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5533)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Following from approaches that view information as documentary forms of specific communicative practices, this paper uses theoretical concepts derived from cultural theory to examine the concept of work in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) in relation to authorship, the ur-text, and intertextuality. Historically, the practice of librarianship has existed on a foundation of standards, and among the earliest of the standards is the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR). The basis of this set of standards is materialist: the object of scrutiny is the document, and the document, whatever its specific form, is considered to possess materiality. This paper argues that unlike the AACR, FRBR lays bare its own ideological underpinnings, and in so doing, it dematerializes the text and mystifies the creative process. At the same time, it has really been with the development of FRBR and linked-data models that library and information science has considered intertextual analysis at the level of the document rather than at a more abstract level. The idealism that underpins FRBR's notion of work points to intertextuality, with all its potential for rich analysis, but at the same time embeds deep in its system the logocentrism of the ideal signified-another example of disciplining epistemology. The paper will examine these two interlinked themes through discussion of FRBR and the strange case of the vanishing text, the ur-text, and intertextuality.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Exploring Philosophies of Information'.
  14. Hider, P.: ¬The functional requirements for community information (2016) 0.06
    0.055345304 = product of:
      0.11069061 = sum of:
        0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014865918 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
        0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09582469 = score(doc=2808,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 2808, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2808)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to consider the nature of community information (CI) and proposes a data model, based on the entity-relationship approach adopted in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), which may assist with the development of future metadata standards for CI systems. Design/methodology/approach - The two main data structure standards for CI, namely the element set developed by the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS) and the MARC21 Format for CI, are compared by means of a mapping exercise, after which an entity-relationship data model is constructed, at a conceptual level, based on the definitions of CI found in the literature. Findings - The AIRS and MARC21 data structures converge to a fair degree, with MARC21 providing for additional detail in several areas. However, neither structure is systematically and unambiguously defined, suggesting the need for a data model. An entity-relationship data modelling approach, similar to that taken in FRBR, yielded a model that could be used as the basis for future standards development and research. It was found to effectively cover both the AIRS and MARC21 element sets. Originality/value - No explicit data model exists for CI, and there has been little discussion reported about what data elements are required to support CI seeking.
  15. Rodríguez, E.E.: Consolidated edition of ISBD, International Standard Bibliographic Description : a standard to trust, a quality brand (2014) 0.05
    0.052094016 = product of:
      0.10418803 = sum of:
        0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01029941 = score(doc=1996,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1996, 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=1996)
        0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 1996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093888626 = score(doc=1996,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 1996, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1996)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The article deals with the most important characteristics of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) standard, International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) Consolidated edition, and some important points of view that have influenced those characteristics, which are: to maintain user trust and the loyalty of customers; to help international identification of resources in accordance with its purpose; to provide the consistency and interoperability of information and to facilitate its reuse; to promote relationships with other standards (content and technological standards), and to introduce the new content stipulations necessary to adapt it to current technologies. The purpose of the article is to make the standard better known and to show the need for its maintenance from a marketing point of view applied to analyze the standard.
  16. Hart, A.: RDA made simple : a practical guide to the new cataloging rules (2014) 0.05
    0.052094016 = product of:
      0.10418803 = sum of:
        0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01029941 = score(doc=2807,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2807, 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=2807)
        0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 2807) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093888626 = score(doc=2807,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 2807, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2807)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Looking for a comprehensive, all-in-one guide to RDA that keeps it simple and provides exactly what you need to know? This book covers planning and training considerations, presents relevant FRBR and FRAD background, and offers practical, step-by-step cataloging advice for a variety of material formats. - Supplies an accessible, up-to-date guide to RDA in a single resource - Covers history and development of the new cataloging code, including the results of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee Report - Presents the latest information on RDA cataloging for multiple material formats, including print, audiovisual, and digital resources - Explains how RDA's concepts, structure, and vocabulary are based on FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data), both of which are reviewed in the book
    LCSH
    Standards
    Subject
    Standards
  17. Petrucciani, A.: Quality of library catalogs and value of (good) catalogs (2015) 0.05
    0.05074306 = product of:
      0.10148612 = sum of:
        0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024031956 = score(doc=1878,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
        0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077454165 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.
  18. Chambers, S.; Myall, C.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2007-8 (2010) 0.05
    0.050680675 = product of:
      0.10136135 = sum of:
        0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077454165 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
        0.023907183 = product of:
          0.047814365 = sum of:
            0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047814365 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050415643 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  19. Kaplan, A.G.; Riedling, A.M.: Catalog it! : a guide to cataloging school library materials (2015) 0.05
    0.04655322 = product of:
      0.09310644 = sum of:
        0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 2379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014865918 = score(doc=2379,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2379, 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=2379)
        0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 2379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07824052 = score(doc=2379,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 2379, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2379)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This invaluable cataloging resource gives pre-service and practicing school library media specialists the tools they need to be intelligent consumers of commercial cataloging and competent organizers of new materials in their collections. The second edition contains expanded information on Library of Congress Subject Headings and electronic cataloging and cataloging systems, as well as Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and Machine Readable Cataloging (MARC). Whether you're a practicing cataloger looking for a short text to update you on the application of RDA to cataloging records or a school librarian who needs a quick resource to answer cataloging questions, this guide is for you. - Thoroughly updates a best-selling, essential guide to cataloging - Addresses the new standards specifically as they apply to school libraries - Helps school librarians understand and implement the new cataloging standards in their collections - Distills the latest information and presents it in a format that is clear and accessible - Fills the need for up-to-the-minute cataloging guidance for the busy librarian who wants information in a hurry
  20. Weber, M.B.; Austin, F.A.: Describing electronic, digital, and other media using AACR2 and RDA : a how-to-do-it manual and cd-rom for librarians (2011) 0.05
    0.045189247 = product of:
      0.09037849 = sum of:
        0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01213797 = score(doc=2087,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2087, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2087)
        0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 2087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07824052 = score(doc=2087,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 2087, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2087)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    LCSH
    Cataloging of electronic information resources / Handbooks, manuals, etc
    Descriptive cataloging / Standards
    Subject
    Cataloging of electronic information resources / Handbooks, manuals, etc
    Descriptive cataloging / Standards

Types

  • a 131
  • el 18
  • m 10
  • b 4
  • n 3
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Subjects