Search (1291 results, page 65 of 65)

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 3118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=3118,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3118, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3118)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Purpose - The objective is to describe the cataloguing component of a digitization project conducted by the University of the West Indies, St Augustine campus. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a case study review of the planning and implementation phases of this project. Findings - The account demonstrates that planning and continuous assessments are necessary elements for successful project completion. Research limitations/implications - The paper highlights the need to adapt planning guidelines to fit a specific environment. Practical implications - The paper puts forward a model for managing the cataloguing aspect of a digitization project. It also provides MARC 21 fields that can be used in coding digital records. Originality/value - The paper emphasizes the value of team work, planning and assessment for managing cataloguing project.

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 5371) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=5371,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 5371, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5371)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 5851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=5851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 5851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5851)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

This paper discusses how the AustLit: Australian Literature Gateway's interpretation, enhancement and implementation of the International Federation of Library Association's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR Final Report 1998) model is meeting the needs of Australian literature scholars for accurate bibliographic representation of the histories of literary texts. It also explores how the AustLit Gateway's underpinning research principles, which are based on the tradition of scholarly enumerative and descriptive bibliography, with enhancements from analytical bibliography and literary biography, have impacted upon our implementation of the FRBR model. The major enhancement or alteration to the model is the use of enhanced manifestations, which allow the full representation of all agents' contributions to be shown in a highly granular format by enabling creation events to be incorporated at all levels of the Work, Expression and Manifestation nexus.

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=488,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 488, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=488)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Bibliographic records are retrieved through the use of access points, headings for persons and corporate bodes who are responsible for the creation of the work(s) represented by the bibliographic record, or who have another relationship with the work(s). Part II of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules. 2d ed. (AACR2) gives instructions for determining which access points should be assigned to a given bibliographic record and the form that those access points should have. This article covers the basic rules in AACR2 that are needed for determining which access points to assign to an archival or manuscript work (whether a collection or an individual item) and for determining the form of access points for personal names, geographic names, and corporate body names.

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 2995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=2995,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2995, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2995)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Resource Description and Access (RDA) includes new lists of content and carrier types intended to replace the General Material Designations (GMDs) and Specific Material Designations (SMDs) of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), and which represent taxonomies designed to facilitate searching on content and carrier attributes of resources. However, these taxonomies were not constructed through analysis of end-user categorizations, nor have they been tested on end-users. This study investigates how end-users categorize library resources by employing the free-listing technique, commonly employed by cognitive scientists and information architects. The results indicate that end-user categorizations of library resources may emphasize other facets, such as purpose, audience and extent, in addition to content and carrier, and also levels of the content and carrier facets other than those represented by the RDA terms.

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=2006,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Reshaping the Library Catalog: Selected Papers from the International Conference FSR2014 (Rome, February 27-28, 2014).

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 2085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=2085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2085)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Footnote

Weitere Ausg.: Chicago: ALA Editions Rez. in: Cataloging and classification quarterly 53(2015) no.1, S.116-119 (Karen Snow)

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 3330) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=3330,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 3330, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3330)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

This paper describes and evaluates an unsupervised and effective authorship verification model called Spatium-L1. As features, we suggest using the 200 most frequent terms of the disputed text (isolated words and punctuation symbols). Applying a simple distance measure and a set of impostors, we can determine whether or not the disputed text was written by the proposed author. Moreover, based on a simple rule we can define when there is enough evidence to propose an answer or when the attribution scheme is unable to make a decision with a high degree of certainty. Evaluations based on 6 test collections (PAN CLEF 2014 evaluation campaign) indicate that Spatium-L1 usually appears in the top 3 best verification systems, and on an aggregate measure, presents the best performance. The suggested strategy can be adapted without any problem to different Indo-European languages (such as English, Dutch, Spanish, and Greek) or genres (essay, novel, review, and newspaper article).

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=1146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

1.7658525E-4 = product of:
  0.003531705 = sum of:
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 1161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=1161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1161)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Linked Open Data (LOD) are a set of principles for publishing structured, connected data available for reuse under an open license. The objective of this paper is to analyze the publishing of bibliographic data such as LOD, having as a product the elaboration of theoretical-methodological recommendations for the publication of these data, in an approach based on the ten best practices for publishing LOD, from the World Wide Web Consortium. The starting point was the conduction of a Systematic Review of Literature, where initiatives to publish bibliographic data such as LOD were identified. An empirical study of these institutions was also conducted. As a result, theoretical-methodological recommendations were obtained for the process of publishing bibliographic data such as LOD.

1.4715438E-4 = product of:
  0.0029430876 = sum of:
    0.0029430876 = weight(_text_:in in 4146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0029430876 = score(doc=4146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 4146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4146)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to provide some insight into mental models of the bibliographic universe and how they compare with functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) as a conceptual model of the bibliographic universe. Design/methodology/approach - To get a more complete picture of the mental models, different elicitation techniques were used. The three tasks of the paper were: card-sorting, concept mapping and comparison task. The paper deals with comparison task, which consisted of interviews and rankings, and provides a discussion of the results of the paper as a whole. Findings - Results of the ranking part of the comparison task confirm the findings of concept mapping task. In both cases, while there are individual differences between mental models, on average they gravitate towards FRBR. Research limitations/implications - This is a small study and it provides only a glimpse of the implications of using FRBR as a conceptual basis for cataloguing. More FRBR-related user studies are needed, including similar studies on different groups of individuals and different types of materials, as well as practical studies of user needs and user interfaces. Practical implications - The results of this study are the first user-tested indication of the validity of FRBR as a conceptual basis for the future of cataloguing. Originality/value - This is the first published paper of mental models of the bibliographic universe and uses a unique combination of mental model elicitation techniques.