Search (712 results, page 2 of 36)

0.08503299 = product of:
  0.113377325 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This paper reviews issues related to the cataloging of Internet resources and considers shortand long-term directions for cataloging and the general provision of library services for remotely accessible, electronic information resources. The strengths and weakness of using a library catalog model to improve access to Internet resources are discussed and compared with a review of related efforts. Based on experience gained through two OCLC Internet cataloging projects, the authors recommend continued and vigorous appplication of library cataloging standards and methods for Internet resources with the expectation that catalogs, cataloging, and libraries in general will continue to evolve.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.197-238

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

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

0.08346216 = product of:
  0.16692431 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 5635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=5635,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5635, 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=5635)
    0.15490833 = weight(_text_:standards in 5635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15490833 = score(doc=5635,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.68939996 = fieldWeight in 5635, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5635)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Studies of professions emphasize various means by which an occupation increases its authority over areas of activity within its jurisdiction. Development of standards and codification of knowledge are important stages in professionalization for any occupation. As technology became a more prevalent component of library bibliographic access, archivists began to seek ways to develop standards for archival description that would support information exchange and allow archives and manuscripts collections to be included in bibliographic utilities. This article describes the evolution of archival descriptive standards, beginning in the late 1970s, within the context of the development of the archival profession.

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.

0.07668869 = product of:
  0.15337738 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
    0.13277857 = weight(_text_:standards in 515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13277857 = score(doc=515,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 515, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=515)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

0.07668869 = product of:
  0.15337738 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 2473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=2473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2473)
    0.13277857 = weight(_text_:standards in 2473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13277857 = score(doc=2473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 2473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2473)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 25(2000) no.4, S.3-17

0.07608504 = product of:
  0.10144672 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=2766,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2766, 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=2766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This study assesses the current state of responsibilities and skill sets required of cataloging professionals. It identifies emerging roles and competencies focusing on the digital environment and relates these to the established knowledge of traditional cataloging standards and practices. We conducted a content analysis of 349 job descriptions advertised in AutoCAT in 2005-2006. Multivariate techniques of cluster and multidimensional-scaling analyses were applied to the data. Analysis of job titles, required and preferred qualifications/skills, and responsibilities lends perspective to the roles that cataloging professionals play in the digital environment. Technological advances increasingly demand knowledge and skills related to electronic resource management, metadata creation, and computer and Web applications. Emerging knowledge and skill sets are increasingly being integrated into the core technical aspects of cataloging such as bibliographic and authority control and integrated library-system management. Management of cataloging functions is also in high demand. The results of the study provide insight on current and future curriculum design of library and information-science programs.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:20:24

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.844-857

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.

0.0734481 = product of:
  0.0979308 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5456,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5456, 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=5456)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 5456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=5456,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 5456, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5456)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 5456) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=5456,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 5456, 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=5456)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Cataloging is a dynamic and ever changing activity. Developments in codes and standards create a need for continuing reconsideration of the design of our curricula. Format integration, in particular, raises questions about the structure of curricula for cataloging and classification. The issues relating to differing formats of materials are not new, but the process of standardization of treatment, which was begun quite tentatively in the development of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) has blossomed to the fore in the ensuing years. This paper examines the historical context of the integration of formats before addressing the continuing arguments that maintain that all types of materials should be treated in an introductory course as opposed to those that assert that format issues should not be covered in any depth in an introductory course. A design for an integrated, but not exhaustive, treatment of formats in an introductory course with more detailed coverage included in advanced courses is proposed.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Education for cataloging and the organization of information: pitfalls and the pendulum; Part I

0.07308527 = product of:
  0.14617054 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 4693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=4693,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 4693, 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=4693)
    0.13415456 = weight(_text_:standards in 4693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13415456 = score(doc=4693,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5970379 = fieldWeight in 4693, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4693)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Defines the virtual catalogue as a bibliographic database built up from a variety of sources, but in which differences between those sources and the means of accessing individual records from particular files are largely invisible to the user. Discusses the issue of common standards for bibliographic records in the virtual catalogue based on the author's experience of the UK Copyright Shared Cataloguing Programme. Considers the problem of deviations from standards, and suggests that in the are of the virtual catalogue present standards should be reconsidered and modified as appropriate. Access, display of records, and searching techniques are 3 areas that need such reconsideration. Recommends greater cooperation with the book trade in order to maximize the use of published information

0.07308527 = product of:
  0.14617054 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 5342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=5342,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5342, 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=5342)
    0.13415456 = weight(_text_:standards in 5342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13415456 = score(doc=5342,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5970379 = fieldWeight in 5342, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5342)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Two forces acting on the bibliographic control of serials are described: the desire to harmonize international standards and practices, and the impact of electronic serials. By breaking out of traditional publishing patterns, electronic serials have called into question current cataloging rules definitions (including the very definition of ''serial''), and practices. Three key standards that affect bibliographic control of serials are currently undergoing revision: AACR2, ISBD(S), and ISSN rules. Areas where harmonization of these rules and standards would be of most benefit to the cataloging and information communities are discussed.

0.06982242 = product of:
  0.13964485 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
    0.13277857 = weight(_text_:standards in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13277857 = score(doc=1425,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This presentation shares the French experience of collaboration between archivists and librarians, led by working groups with the Association française de normalisation (AFNOR). With the arrival of the Web, the various heritage institutions are increasingly aware of their areas of commonality and the need for interoperability between their catalogues. This is particularly true for archives and libraries, which have developed standards for meeting their specific needs Regarding document description, but which are now seeking to establish a dialogue for defining a coherent set of standards to which professionals in both communities can refer. After discussing the characteristics of the collections held respectively in archives and libraries, this presentation will draw a portrait of the standards established by the two professional communities in the following areas: - description of documents - access points in descriptions and authority records - description of functions - identification of conservation institutions and collections It is concluded from this study that the standards developed by libraries on the one hand and by archives on the other are most often complementary and that each professional community is being driven to use the standards developed by the other, or would at least profit from doing so. A dialogue between the two professions is seen today as a necessity for fostering the compatibility and interoperability of standards and documentary tools. Despite this recognition of the need for collaboration, the development of standards is still largely a compartmentalized process, and the fact that normative work is conducted within professional associations is a contributing factor. The French experience shows, however, that it is possible to create working groups where archivists and librarians unite and develop a comprehensive view of the standards and initiatives conducted by each, with the goal of articulating them as best they can for the purpose of interoperability, yet respecting the specific requirements of each.

Content

Beitrag während: World library and information congress: 74th IFLA general conference and council, 10-14 August 2008, Québec, Canada.

0.06945869 = product of:
  0.13891739 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 6425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=6425,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6425, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6425)
    0.12518483 = weight(_text_:standards in 6425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12518483 = score(doc=6425,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5571193 = fieldWeight in 6425, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6425)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The library and Internet communities have been working on standards for identifying and referencing electronic resources. Reports on recent library efforts, including work to record URL and URN (Uniform Resource Locator and Uniform Resource Number) information in USMARC records, and collaboration with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to define a Uniform Resource Citation for electronic publications

0.067740746 = product of:
  0.13548149 = sum of:
    0.114989616 = weight(_text_:standards in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114989616 = score(doc=71,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.51174676 = fieldWeight in 71, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=71)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=71,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 71, 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=71)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Cataloging rules for computer-based materials were first introduced in the 1970s, and since then have undergone almost continuous modification and revision. This article focuses on analysis and comparison of the various codes and guidelines for practice issued for what are now called electronic resources. Creation of new cataloging rules has been spurred by introduction of new physical carriers, the preeminence of materials accessed remotely versus those with physical carriers, the need for guidance in cataloging specific instances of computer-based materials, and the evolution of the theoretical concerns underlying the cataloging codes. Based on this history of constant change, it is easy to predict many more changes in the cataloging standards for computer-based materials in the future. However, continuous changes in the cataloging rules may have produced as much confusion as clarity for working catalogers. Caution should be exercised in the creation of new rules and standards for cataloging electronic resources, as it is possible that older rules and standards may, in fact, be readily adapted to new types of electronic resources.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

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

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

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.

0.06706659 = product of:
  0.089422114 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=339,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.06259242 = weight(_text_:standards in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06259242 = score(doc=339,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27855965 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
    0.012264134 = product of:
      0.024528269 = sum of:
        0.024528269 = weight(_text_:organization in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024528269 = score(doc=339,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13645788 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Content

What is metadata? - Metadata schemas & their relationships to particular communities - Library and information-related metadata schemas - Creating library metadata for monographic materials - Creating library metadata for continuing materials - Integrating library metadata into local cataloging and bibliographic - databases - Digital collections/digital libraries - Archiving & preserving digital materials - Impact of digital resources on library services - Future possibilities

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST. 58(2007) no.6., S.909-910 (A.D. Petrou): "A division in metadata definitions for physical objects vs. those for digital resources offered in Chapter 1 is punctuated by the use of broader, more inclusive metadata definitions, such as data about data as well as with the inclusion of more specific metadata definitions intended for networked resources. Intertwined with the book's subject matter, which is to "distinguish traditional cataloguing from metadata activity" (5), the authors' chosen metadata definition is also detailed on page 5 as follows: Thus while granting the validity of the inclusive definition, we concentrate primarily on metadata as it is most commonly thought of both inside and outside of the library community, as "structured information used to find, access, use and manage information resources primarily in a digital environment." (International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science, 2003) Metadata principles discussed by the authors include modularity, extensibility, refinement and multilingualism. The latter set is followed by seven misconceptions about metadata. Two types of metadata discussed are automatically generated indexes and manually created records. In terms of categories of metadata, the authors present three sets of them as follows: descriptive, structural, and administrative metadata. Chapter 2 focuses on metadata for communities of practice, and is a prelude to content in Chapter 3 where metadata applications, use, and development are presented from the perspective of libraries. Chapter 2 discusses the emergence and impact of metadata on organization and access of online resources from the perspective of communities for which such standards exist and for the need for mapping one standard to another. Discussion focuses on metalanguages, such as Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and eXtensible Markup Language (XML), "capable of embedding descriptive elements within the document markup itself' (25). This discussion falls under syntactic interoperability. For semantic interoperability, HTML and other mark-up languages, such as Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) and Computer Interchange of Museum Information (CIMI), are covered. For structural interoperability, Dublin Core's 15 metadata elements are grouped into three areas: content (title, subject, description, type, source, relation, and coverage), intellectual property (creator, publisher, contributor and rights), and instantiation (date, format, identifier, and language) for discussion.
Other selected specialized metadata element sets or schemas, such as Government Information Locator Service (GILS), are presented. Attention is brought to the different sets of elements and the need for linking up these elements across metadata schemes from a semantic point of view. It is no surprise, then, that after the presentation of additional specialized sets of metadata from the educational community and the arts sector, attention is turned to the discussion of Crosswalks between metadata element sets or the mapping of one metadata standard to another. Finally, the five appendices detailing elements found in Dublin Core, GILS, ARIADNE versions 3 and 3. 1, and Categories for the Description of Works of Art are an excellent addition to this chapter's focus on metadata and communities of practice. Chapters 3-6 provide an up-to-date account of the use of metadata standards in Libraries from the point of view of a community of practice. Some of the content standards included in these four chapters are AACR2, Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), and Library of Congress Subject Classification. In addition, uses of MARC along with planned implementations of the archival community's encoding scheme, EAD, are covered in detail. In a way, content in these chapters can be considered as a refresher course on the history, current state, importance, and usefulness of the above-mentioned standards in Libraries. Application of the standards is offered for various types of materials, such as monographic materials, continuing resources, and integrating library metadata into local catalogs and databases. A review of current digital library projects takes place in Chapter 7. While details about these projects tend to become out of date fast, the sections on issues and problems encountered in digital projects and successes and failures deserve any reader's close inspection. A suggested model is important enough to merit a specific mention below, in a short list format, as it encapsulates lessons learned from issues, problems, successes, and failures in digital projects. Before detailing the model, however, the various projects included in Chapter 7 should be mentioned. The projects are: Colorado Digitization Project, Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (an Office of Research project by OCLC, Inc.), California Digital Library, JSTOR, LC's National Digital Library Program and VARIATIONS.
Chapter 8 discusses issues of archiving and preserving digital materials. The chapter reiterates, "What is the point of all of this if the resources identified and catalogued are not preserved?" (Gorman, 2003, p. 16). Discussion about preservation and related issues is organized in five sections that successively ask why, what, who, how, and how much of the plethora of digital materials should be archived and preserved. These are not easy questions because of media instability and technological obsolescence. Stakeholders in communities with diverse interests compete in terms of which community or representative of a community has an authoritative say in what and how much get archived and preserved. In discussing the above-mentioned questions, the authors once again provide valuable information and lessons from a number of initiatives in Europe, Australia, and from other global initiatives. The Draft Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage and the Guidelines for the Preservation of Digital Heritage, both published by UNESCO, are discussed and some of the preservation principles from the Guidelines are listed. The existing diversity in administrative arrangements for these new projects and resources notwithstanding, the impact on content produced for online reserves through work done in digital projects and from the use of metadata and the impact on levels of reference services and the ensuing need for different models to train users and staff is undeniable. In terms of education and training, formal coursework, continuing education, and informal and on-the-job training are just some of the available options. The intensity in resources required for cataloguing digital materials, the questions over the quality of digital resources, and the threat of the new digital environment to the survival of the traditional library are all issues quoted by critics and others, however, who are concerned about a balance for planning and resources allocated for traditional or print-based resources and newer digital resources. A number of questions are asked as part of the book's conclusions in Chapter 10. Of these questions, one that touches on all of the rest and upon much of the book's content is the question: What does the future hold for metadata in libraries? Metadata standards are alive and well in many communities of practice, as Chapters 2-6 have demonstrated. The usefulness of metadata continues to be high and innovation in various elements should keep information professionals engaged for decades to come. There is no doubt that metadata have had a tremendous impact in how we organize information for access and in terms of who, how, when, and where contact is made with library services and collections online. Planning and commitment to a diversity of metadata to serve the plethora of needs in communities of practice are paramount for the continued success of many digital projects and for online preservation of our digital heritage."

LCSH

Information organization
Cataloging / Standards
Cataloging of electronic information resources
Information storage and retrieval systems
Electronic information resources / Management

Series

Library and information science text series

Subject

Information organization
Cataloging / Standards
Cataloging of electronic information resources
Information storage and retrieval systems
Electronic information resources / Management

0.06387309 = product of:
  0.08516412 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=5669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Today's electronic catalogue makes retrieval of specific records very simple and quick in most (not all) cases, but searches aimed at the reliable retrieval of all material answering a well-defined need (author, work, theme, form, etc.) are still long and tiring, and sometimes impossible, in crowded bibliographic databases. In spite of its great relevance, authority control has been and still is the "poor relative" of cataloguing, the often neglected or overlooked "other half" if we compare it to the creation of bibliographic records. The FRBR study and the new authority control standards (GARR and UNIMARC Authorities) are important steps towards future perspectives. Even today, cataloguing codes do not make clear the difference between the access points for bibliographic records and the relationships (work-to-work, author-to-work, etc.) that are independent from spoecific publications. With the development of richer authority records and relationships, the bibliographic record might be relieved of information related to entities different from publications and of all the functions more suitably worked out upstream or downstream in access systems or by links to the images and/or the texts of the publications themselves. A "light" bibliographic record would no longer be the paramount component of library information systems; it would keep its central role rather as nimble, swift turntable between access and content organization systems and systems for management and display of digital resources themselves.