Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Miksa, S.D.: ¬The challenges of change : a review of cataloging and classification literature, 2003-2004 (2007) 0.08 
    0.07525398 = product of:
  0.11288096 = sum of:
    0.08516933 = weight(_text_:resources in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08516933 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.45629224 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.027711634 = product of:
      0.055423267 = sum of:
        0.055423267 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055423267 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 51(2007) no.1, S.51-68
  2. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.07 
    0.073279545 = product of:
  0.10991931 = sum of:
    0.075279765 = weight(_text_:resources in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075279765 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.40330917 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
    0.034639545 = product of:
      0.06927909 = sum of:
        0.06927909 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06927909 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 44(2000) no.3, S.160-167
  3. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.06 
    0.06217975 = product of:
  0.093269624 = sum of:
    0.063876994 = weight(_text_:resources in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063876994 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.34221917 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.029392628 = product of:
      0.058785256 = sum of:
        0.058785256 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058785256 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    19. 6.2010 19:22:28
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 52(2008) no.1, S.54-59
  4. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.06 
    0.058623634 = product of:
  0.08793545 = sum of:
    0.06022381 = weight(_text_:resources in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06022381 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.32264733 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.027711634 = product of:
      0.055423267 = sum of:
        0.055423267 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055423267 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 52(2008) no.3, S.148-163
  5. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.06 
    0.058623634 = product of:
  0.08793545 = sum of:
    0.06022381 = weight(_text_:resources in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06022381 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.32264733 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
    0.027711634 = product of:
      0.055423267 = sum of:
        0.055423267 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055423267 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 51(2007) no.4, S.286-292
  6. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.05 
    0.05129568 = product of:
  0.07694352 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.02424768 = product of:
      0.04849536 = sum of:
        0.04849536 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04849536 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.1, S.xx-xx
  7. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.04 
    0.04396772 = product of:
  0.06595158 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 51(2007) no.3, S.190-203
  8. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.04 
    0.036639772 = product of:
  0.054959655 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
    0.017319772 = product of:
      0.034639545 = sum of:
        0.034639545 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034639545 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 44(2000) no.3, S.114-121
  9. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.03 
    0.029311817 = product of:
  0.043967724 = sum of:
    0.030111905 = weight(_text_:resources in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030111905 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.16132367 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.013855817 = product of:
      0.027711634 = sum of:
        0.027711634 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027711634 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity
    Date
    17. 6.2015 14:40:22
  10. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.03 
    0.029311817 = product of:
  0.043967724 = sum of:
    0.030111905 = weight(_text_:resources in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030111905 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.16132367 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
    0.013855817 = product of:
      0.027711634 = sum of:
        0.027711634 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027711634 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  11. Taniguchi, S.: Conceptual modeling of component parts of bibliographic resources in cataloging (2003) 0.02 
    0.021292333 = product of:
  0.063876994 = sum of:
    0.063876994 = weight(_text_:resources in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063876994 = score(doc=4442,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.34221917 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper examines differences in modeling component parts of bibliographic resources between two conceptual models in cataloging, as a continuation of the previous study that proposed a model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity. First, the model by IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) was examined from the viewpoint of modeling component parts when each part in itself is a resource to be described. The examination is done on two types of component parts, a content part and a document part, which are different in terms of whether they are physically independent. This results in different structures for these two component types. Secondly, by applying the viewpoint to the model that the author proposed earlier, it has become clear that both component types can be modeled basically in the same manner, indicating the model's superiority in consistency to the FRBR model in this respect.
  12. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.02 
    0.016833069 = product of:
  0.050499205 = sum of:
    0.050499205 = weight(_text_:resources in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050499205 = score(doc=1271,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.27054805 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
    The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.
  13. Markey, K.: ¬The online library catalog : paradise lost and paradise regained? (2007) 0.02 
    0.015211977 = product of:
  0.04563593 = sum of:
    0.04563593 = weight(_text_:resources in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04563593 = score(doc=1172,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.24449319 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.
  14. Mann, T.: ¬The changing nature of the catalog and its integration with other discovery tools. Final report. March 17, 2006. Prepared for the Library of Congress by Karen Calhoun : A critical review (2006) 0.02 
    0.015055953 = product of:
  0.045167856 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=5012,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    According to the Calhoun report, library operations that are not digital, that do not result in resources that are remotely accessible, that involve professional human judgement or expertise, or that require conceptual categorization and standardization rather than relevance ranking of keywords, do not fit into its proposed "leadership" strategy. This strategy itself, however, is based on an inappropriate business model - and a misrepresentation of that business model to begin with. The Calhoun report draws unjustified conclusions about the digital age, inflates wishful thinking, fails to make critical distinctions, and disregards (as well as mischaracterizes) an alternative "niche" strategy for research libraries, to promote scholarship (rather than increase "market position"). Its recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings, and to use "fast turnaround" time as the "gold standard" in cataloging, are particularly unjustified, and would have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.
  15. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2005) 0.02 
    0.015055953 = product of:
  0.045167856 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=1086,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Content
    Vgl. auch: Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.1, S.xx-xx.
  16. Coyle, K.: ¬The virtual union catalog : a comparative study (2000) 0.02 
    0.015055953 = product of:
  0.045167856 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=1230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A Virtual union catalog is a possible alternative to the centralized database of distributed resources found in many library systems. Such a catalog would not be maintained in a single location but would be created in real time by searching each local campus or affiliate library's catalog through the Z39.50 protocol. This would eliminate the redundancy of record storage as well as the expense of loading and maintaining access to the central catalog. This article describes a test implementation of a virtual union catalog for the University of California system. It describes some of the differences between the virtual catalog and the existing, centralized union catalog (MELVYL). The research described in the paper suggests enhancements that must be made if the virtual union catalog is to become a reasonable service alternative to the MELVYL® catalog.
  17. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.01 
    0.013855817 = product of:
  0.04156745 = sum of:
    0.04156745 = product of:
      0.0831349 = sum of:
        0.0831349 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0831349 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  18. Smiraglia, R.P.: Rethinking what we catalog : documents as cultural artifacts (2008) 0.01 
    0.012546628 = product of:
  0.037639882 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.
  19. Frohmann, B.: Revisiting "what is a document?" (2009) 0.01 
    0.012546628 = product of:
  0.037639882 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=2837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a reconsideration of Michael Buckland's important question, "What is a document?", analysing the point and purpose of definitions of "document" and "documentation". Design/methodology/approach - Two philosophical notions of the point of definitions are contrasted: John Stuart Mill's concept of a "real" definition, purporting to specify the nature of the definiendum; and a concept of definition based upon a foundationalist philosophy of language. Both conceptions assume that a general, philosophical justification for using words as we do is always in order. This assumption is criticized by deploying Hilary Putnam's arguments against the orthodox Wittgensteinian interpretation of criteria governing the use of language. The example of the cabinets of curiosities of the sixteenth-century English and European virtuosi is developed to show how one might productively think about what documents might be, but without a definition of a document. Findings - Other than for specific, instrumentalist purposes (often appropriate for specific case studies), there is no general philosophical reason for asking, what is a document? There are good reasons for pursuing studies of documentation without the impediments of definitions of "document" or "documentation". Originality/value - The paper makes an original contribution to the new interest in documentation studies by providing conceptual resources for multiplying, rather than restricting, the areas of application of the concepts of documents and documentation.
  20. Sauperl, A.; Saye, J.D.: Have we made any progress? : catalogues of the future revisited (2009) 0.01 
    0.012546628 = product of:
  0.037639882 = sum of:
    0.037639882 = weight(_text_:resources in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037639882 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.20165458 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user-friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive "Google attack." Findings - Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven-year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future. Research limitations/implications - A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others. Practical implications - OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the "competition" for those with information needs. Originality/value - A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.

Authors

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications