Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.02 
    0.022095848 = product of:
  0.044191696 = sum of:
    0.016838044 = weight(_text_:information in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016838044 = score(doc=101,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
    0.027353654 = product of:
      0.054707307 = sum of:
        0.054707307 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054707307 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  2. Miksa, S.D.: ¬The challenges of change : a review of cataloging and classification literature, 2003-2004 (2007) 0.02 
    0.022060106 = product of:
  0.04412021 = sum of:
    0.018330941 = weight(_text_:information in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018330941 = score(doc=266,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
    0.02578927 = product of:
      0.05157854 = sum of:
        0.05157854 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05157854 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  3. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.02 
    0.020539887 = product of:
  0.041079774 = sum of:
    0.021737823 = weight(_text_:information in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021737823 = score(doc=54,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
    0.019341951 = product of:
      0.038683902 = sum of:
        0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038683902 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, 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=54)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Extensive literatures exist on information searching theory and techniques, as well as on the Bradford Distribution. This distribution, also known as "Bradford's Law of Scattering," tells us that information on a subject is dispersed in a characteristic and robust pattern that appears consistently across many different environments. This pattern may be expected to have important implications for information searching theory and techniques. Yet these two research literatures are rarely considered in relation to each other. It is the purpose of this article to distinguish three Bradford regions and speculate on the optimum searching techniques for each region. In the process, browsing, directed searching in databases, and the pursuit of various forms of links will all be considered. Implications of growth in size of a literature for optimal information organization and searching will also be addressed.
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
    Source
    Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari
  4. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.02 
    0.019375602 = product of:
  0.038751204 = sum of:
    0.012961932 = weight(_text_:information in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012961932 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
    0.02578927 = product of:
      0.05157854 = sum of:
        0.05157854 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05157854 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Debate about the future of library catalogs and cataloging has been, and continues to be, featured in the literature of librarianship. Some research into the ways undergraduate students at one institution assign subjects to selected works provides insight into the cognitive elements of categorization. The design of catalogs can be informed by this research, as well as work currently being done on alternative means of organization, such as information systems ontologies.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  5. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.01 
    0.012949031 = product of:
  0.025898062 = sum of:
    0.011906295 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011906295 = score(doc=1271,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.14252704 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.013991767 = product of:
      0.027983533 = sum of:
        0.027983533 = weight(_text_:technology in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027983533 = score(doc=1271,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.19744103 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  6. Pera, M.S.; Lund, W.; Ng, Y.-K.: ¬A sophisticated library search strategy using folksonomies and similarity matching (2009) 0.01 
    0.012845755 = product of:
  0.02569151 = sum of:
    0.0140317045 = weight(_text_:information in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0140317045 = score(doc=2939,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=2939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Libraries, private and public, offer valuable resources to library patrons. As of today, the only way to locate information archived exclusively in libraries is through their catalogs. Library patrons, however, often find it difficult to formulate a proper query, which requires using specific keywords assigned to different fields of desired library catalog records, to obtain relevant results. These improperly formulated queries often yield irrelevant results or no results at all. This negative experience in dealing with existing library systems turns library patrons away from directly querying library catalogs; instead, they rely on Web search engines to perform their searches first, and upon obtaining the initial information (e.g., titles, subject headings, or authors) on the desired library materials, they query library catalogs. This searching strategy is an evidence of failure of today's library systems. In solving this problem, we propose an enhanced library system, which allows partial, similarity matching of (a) tags defined by ordinary users at a folksonomy site that describe the content of books and (b) unrestricted keywords specified by an ordinary library patron in a query to search for relevant library catalog records. The proposed library system allows patrons posting a query Q using commonly used words and ranks the retrieved results according to their degrees of resemblance with Q while maintaining the query processing time comparable with that achieved by current library search engines.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.7, S.1392-1406
  7. Byrd, J.; Charbonneau, G.; Charbonneau, M.; Courtney, A.; Johnson, E.; Leonard, K.; Morrison, A.; Mudge, S.; O'Bryan, A.; Opasik, S.; Riley, J.; Turchyn, S.: ¬A white paper on the future of cataloging at Indiana University (2006) 0.01 
    0.011558321 = product of:
  0.023116643 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=3225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3225, 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=3225)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=3225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.
  8. Coyle, K.; Hillmann, D.: Resource Description and Access (RDA) : cataloging rules for the 20th century (2007) 0.01 
    0.011558321 = product of:
  0.023116643 = sum of:
    0.011456838 = weight(_text_:information in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011456838 = score(doc=2525,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2525, 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=2525)
    0.011659805 = product of:
      0.02331961 = sum of:
        0.02331961 = weight(_text_:technology in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02331961 = score(doc=2525,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1417311 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.16453418 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.978387 = idf(docFreq=6114, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.
  9. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.01 
    0.009687801 = product of:
  0.019375602 = sum of:
    0.006480966 = weight(_text_:information in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006480966 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2647, 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=2647)
    0.012894635 = product of:
      0.02578927 = sum of:
        0.02578927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02578927 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    17. 6.2015 14:40:22
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  10. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.01 
    0.009687801 = product of:
  0.019375602 = sum of:
    0.006480966 = weight(_text_:information in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006480966 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
    0.012894635 = product of:
      0.02578927 = sum of:
        0.02578927 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02578927 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.01 
    0.009670976 = product of:
  0.038683902 = sum of:
    0.038683902 = product of:
      0.077367805 = sum of:
        0.077367805 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.077367805 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  12. Managing cataloging and the organization of information : philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century (2000) 0.01 
    0.008476825 = product of:
  0.01695365 = sum of:
    0.0056708455 = weight(_text_:information in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0056708455 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
    0.011282805 = product of:
      0.02256561 = sum of:
        0.02256561 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02256561 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in ZfBB 51(2004) H.1, S.54-55 (G. Pflug): "Unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der Informationstechnologie auf den Bibliotheksbereich nimmt die Katalogisierung eine Schlüsselstellung ein. Das vorliegende Werk gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Der erste Abschnitt ist mit »National Libraries« überschrieben, befasst sich jedoch nur mit der Library of Congress und der National Library of Canada. Ihm folgen Artikel über »Libraries around the world«. Dabei fälltjedoch auf, dass diese Studien zwar Bibliotheken in Großbritannien, Australien, Mittel- und Südamerika und selbst Afrika (Botswana) behandeln, nicht jedoch aus Kontinentaleuropa, trotz entsprechender Aktivitäten etwa in den Niederlanden, in Frankreich oder den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Nur DOBIS/LIBIS wird erwähnt, aber nur, weil es für kurze Zeit die kanadische Entwicklung beeinflusst hat. Im zweiten Teil kommen Katalogisierungsfachleute aus vier Spezial- und neun akademischen Bibliotheken - ausschließlich aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien - zu Wort. So enthält das Werk in 22 Beispielen Berichte über individuelle und regionale Lösungen. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, zu welchen Änderungen in der Katalogisierungs- und Sacherschließungspraxis die neuen elektronischen Techniken geführt haben. So streben z.B. die englischen Hochschulbibliotheken ein koordiniertes System an. Mit dem Übergang der British Library zu MARC 21 wird das Katalogsystem in Großbritannien nachhaltig beeinflusst - um nur zwei nahe liegende Beispiele zu nennen. Insgesamt werden drei Aspekte behandelt, die Automatisierungstechnik; die dabei einzusetzende Kooperation und das Outsourcing - nicht nur durch Übernahme von Daten anderer Bibliotheken oder durch Verbundsysteme, vor allem der Library of Congress, sondern auch durch Buchhandelsfirmen wie Blackwell North America Authority Control Service. In der Frage der Sacherschließung befassen sich die Beiträge mit den im amerikanischen Bereich üblichen Klassifikationssystemen, vor allem der Colon Classification, Dewey in seinen beiden Formen oder der Library of Congress Classification. Für die deutsche Diskussion sind diese Aspekte vor allem wegen des Übergangs der Deutschen Bibliothek in ihrer Nationalbibliografie zur DDC von großem Interesse (vgl. Magda Heiner-Freiling: Die DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. In Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 15. 2003, Nr. 3, S. 8-13). Doch stellen auch die unterschiedlichen Überlegungen zur alphabetischen Katalogisierung, verbunden mit den da zugehörigen Datenbanken, einen interessanten Beitrag zur augenblicklichen Diskussion in Deutschland dar, da auch hier seit einigen Jahren die Katalogisierung nach RAK und ihre Ablösung eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst hat, wie unter anderem der zusammenfassende Beitrag von Elisabeth Niggemann in: Dialog mit Bibliotheken (15. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 4-8) zeigt. Auch die angloamerikanischen und die mit ihnen zum Beispiel in Mexiko, Südamerika oder Australien verbundenen Bibliotheken - das zeigt das Buch deutlich - diskutieren die Frage der alphabetischen Katalogisierung kontrovers. So werden z.B. neben den dominanten AACR-Regeln mit ihrer Weiterentwicklung mehr als zehn andere Katalogisierungssysteme und rund 20 Online-Datenbanken behandelt. Damit liefert das Buch für die Diskussion in Deutschland und die anstehenden Entscheidungen in seiner Grundtendenz wie in den unterschiedlichen-auch widersprüchlichen-Aspekten dereinzelnen Beiträge wertvolle Anregungen."
  13. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.01 
    0.008059147 = product of:
  0.032236587 = sum of:
    0.032236587 = product of:
      0.064473175 = sum of:
        0.064473175 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064473175 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  14. Matthews, J.: ¬The value of information in library catalogs (2000) 0.01 
    0.008019786 = product of:
  0.032079145 = sum of:
    0.032079145 = weight(_text_:information in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032079145 = score(doc=659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Information outlook. 4(2000) no.7, S.18-24
  15. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.01 
    0.0064473175 = product of:
  0.02578927 = sum of:
    0.02578927 = product of:
      0.05157854 = sum of:
        0.05157854 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05157854 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  16. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.01 
    0.0056414027 = product of:
  0.02256561 = sum of:
    0.02256561 = product of:
      0.04513122 = sum of:
        0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04513122 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  17. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.01 
    0.0056414027 = product of:
  0.02256561 = sum of:
    0.02256561 = product of:
      0.04513122 = sum of:
        0.04513122 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04513122 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs, symbols,and canons : The epistemology of the work (2001) 0.00 
    0.004860725 = product of:
  0.0194429 = sum of:
    0.0194429 = weight(_text_:information in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0194429 = score(doc=1119,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.
  19. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.00 
    0.004835488 = product of:
  0.019341951 = sum of:
    0.019341951 = product of:
      0.038683902 = sum of:
        0.038683902 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038683902 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16663991 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047586527 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  20. Condron, L.: Management by action : how we're embracing new cataloging work at Tufts (2001) 0.00 
    0.004209511 = product of:
  0.016838044 = sum of:
    0.016838044 = weight(_text_:information in 5430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016838044 = score(doc=5430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.083537094 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047586527 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5430)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

Authors

Types

  • a 33
  • el 6
  • b 3
  • m 3
  • r 3
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications