Search (209 results, page 2 of 11)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. Stoker, D.: Computer cataloguing in retrospect (1997) 0.02
    0.018982807 = product of:
      0.037965614 = sum of:
        0.037965614 = sum of:
          0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.006765375 = score(doc=605,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions
    Date
    9. 2.1997 18:44:22
    Type
    a
  2. Homan, P.A.: Library catalog notes for "bad books" : ethics vs. responsibilities (2012) 0.02
    0.018982807 = product of:
      0.037965614 = sum of:
        0.037965614 = sum of:
          0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.006765375 = score(doc=420,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."
    Content
    Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_f.pdf.
    Date
    27. 9.2012 14:22:00
    Type
    a
  3. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.02
    0.018720143 = product of:
      0.037440285 = sum of:
        0.037440285 = product of:
          0.07488057 = sum of:
            0.07488057 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07488057 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  4. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.02
    0.017992042 = product of:
      0.035984084 = sum of:
        0.035984084 = sum of:
          0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0047838427 = score(doc=190,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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)
    
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  5. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.02
    0.017720532 = product of:
      0.035441063 = sum of:
        0.035441063 = sum of:
          0.010480874 = weight(_text_:a in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010480874 = score(doc=2647,freq=30.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
                5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                  30.0 = termFreq=30.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
          0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02496019 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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)
    
    Abstract
    Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.
    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
    Type
    a
  6. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.02
    0.016758895 = product of:
      0.03351779 = sum of:
        0.03351779 = sum of:
          0.008557598 = weight(_text_:a in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008557598 = score(doc=2666,freq=20.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
                4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                  20.0 = termFreq=20.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
          0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02496019 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = 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)
    
    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
    Type
    a
  7. Managing cataloging and the organization of information : philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century (2000) 0.01
    0.0054600416 = product of:
      0.010920083 = sum of:
        0.010920083 = product of:
          0.021840166 = sum of:
            0.021840166 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.021840166 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = 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(1/2)
    
    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."
  8. Crestadoro, A.: ¬The art of making catalogues of libraries : or, a method to obtain in a short time a most perfect, complete, and satisfactory printed catalog of the British Museum Library / by a reader therein [i.e. A. Crestadoro] (1856) 0.00
    0.003551822 = product of:
      0.007103644 = sum of:
        0.007103644 = product of:
          0.014207288 = sum of:
            0.014207288 = weight(_text_:a in 2159) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.014207288 = score(doc=2159,freq=18.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.26752928 = fieldWeight in 2159, product of:
                  4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                    18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2159)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    Enthält als Definition für Katalog: "a list of goods; its direct object is to make an inventory of the property by recording a full and exact description of each and every article". Er führt weiter aus: There is no need to order this list "beyond the most common process of merely ticketing for future reference each article with a progressive number". Indexes on titles, authors and subject can refer to these running numbers.
  9. Doering, W.: Managing the transition to a new catalog : tips for smotth sailing (2000) 0.00
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = product of:
          0.01339476 = sum of:
            0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 3382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01339476 = score(doc=3382,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 3382, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3382)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  10. Wells, K.L.: Editing the online catalog (1995) 0.00
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = product of:
          0.01339476 = sum of:
            0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01339476 = score(doc=362,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 362, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=362)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The information in a manual card catalogue cannot be transformed into a machine-readable file without some cleanup work. Correcting problem records only as they are reported by patrons or discovered by staff, in the course of normal workflow, can mean that incomplete, incorrect or obsolete information is left in the database for long periods of time. A large database editing project, while it requires a major investment of staff time, can clean up the online file and improve patron access in a relatively short time. Suggests a method which focuses on specific types of catalogue records in the library's online system. Such a database editing project represents an investment in the future that more than justifies the time and effort that go into it
    Type
    a
  11. Layne, S.S.: Brian E. Schottlaender : politics and philosophy of bibliographic control, a conversation (1999) 0.00
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = product of:
          0.01339476 = sum of:
            0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 5622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01339476 = score(doc=5622,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 5622, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5622)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a
  12. Tillett, B.B.: ¬A taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (1991) 0.00
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = product of:
          0.013257373 = sum of:
            0.013257373 = weight(_text_:a in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013257373 = score(doc=6686,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A bibliographic relationship is an association between two or more bibliographic items or works. In an effort to provide the theoretical base for a conceptual model of the library catalog, past and future, the bibliographic relationship is examined here in detail. In this first of a series of reports, a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships is derived from an analysis of cataloging rules and types of bibliographic items.
    Type
    a
  13. Bryant, P.: Making the most of our libraries : library catalogue access: the issues and the opportunities (1997) 0.00
    0.0033143433 = product of:
      0.0066286866 = sum of:
        0.0066286866 = product of:
          0.013257373 = sum of:
            0.013257373 = weight(_text_:a in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.013257373 = score(doc=604,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Indicates the benefits to be gained from a comprehensive programme of retrospective conversion of manual catalogue records into computerized form. Enumerates the scale of the task involved and the likely costs of the programme derived. Raises a range of issues arising from a relating to retrospective conversion and discusses the management implications. Lists a number of initiatives already undertaken and outlines the development of a possible national strategy
    Type
    a
  14. Hedman, T.: Utkast till en deskriptiv teori for katalogsokning / informationsatervinning (1997) 0.00
    0.0031324127 = product of:
      0.0062648254 = sum of:
        0.0062648254 = product of:
          0.012529651 = sum of:
            0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012529651 = score(doc=1428,freq=14.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
                  3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                    14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Library information searching lacks a descriptive theory which explains how a user decides to borrow one book and not another. Such theory should act as a reference framework against which cataloguing rules and the classification system can be measured, and should be based on 2 complementary perspectives, described in detail: modern classification theory, which explains what cataloguing and classification involve, and philosophy of science, which explains what happens when the user meets the catalogue record. Catalogue information must answer which work is described, and why this work on the subject is chosen. A descriptive theory is especially necessary for knowing what new information to add to the catalogue. Discusses this in a subsequent article
    Footnote
    Übers. d. Titels: Draft of a descriptive theory of catalogue searching / information retrieval
    Type
    a
  15. Coyle, K.: ¬The virtual union catalog : a comparative study (2000) 0.00
    0.0030444188 = product of:
      0.0060888375 = sum of:
        0.0060888375 = product of:
          0.012177675 = sum of:
            0.012177675 = weight(_text_:a in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.012177675 = score(doc=1230,freq=18.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
                  4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                    18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    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.
    Type
    a
  16. Williamson, N.J.: Is there a catalog in your future? : Access to information in the year 2006 (1982) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=122,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch: Howarth, L.C.: "Is there a catalog in your future?": Celebrating Nancy J. Williamson: Scholar, educator, colleague, mentor. In: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.1, S.1-9.
    Type
    a
  17. Julien, C.-A.; Guastavino, C.; Bouthillier, F.: Capitalizing on information organization and information visualization for a new-generation catalogue (2012) 0.00
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = product of:
          0.011717974 = sum of:
            0.011717974 = weight(_text_:a in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011717974 = score(doc=5567,freq=24.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 5567, product of:
                  4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                    24.0 = termFreq=24.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5567)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Subject searching is difficult with traditional text-based online public access library catalogues (OPACs), and the next-generation discovery layers are keyword searching and result filtering tools that offer little support for subject browsing. Next-generation OPACs ignore the rich network of relations offered by controlled subject vocabulary, which can facilitate subject browsing. A new generation of OPACs could leverage existing information-organization investments and offer online searchers a novel browsing and searching environment. This is a case study of the design and development of a virtual reality subject browsing and information retrieval tool. The functional prototype shows that the Library of Congress subject headings (LCSH) can be shaped into a useful and usable tree structure serving as a visual metaphor that contains a real world collection from the domain of science and engineering. Formative tests show that users can effectively browse the LCSH tree and carve it up based on their keyword search queries. This study uses a complex information-organization structure as a defining characteristic of an OPAC that goes beyond the standard keyword search model, toward the cutting edge of online search tools.
    Type
    a
  18. Fattahi, R.: Library cataloguing and abstracting and indexing services : reconciliation of principles in the online environment (1998) 0.00
    0.0029000505 = product of:
      0.005800101 = sum of:
        0.005800101 = product of:
          0.011600202 = sum of:
            0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011600202 = score(doc=2587,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    With the ever-increasing developments in information technology and networks, end users of the online environment now have integrated access to a variety of bibliographic databases, mainly library catalogues and A&I services, from a single terminal. While such a facility influences users' expectations and preferences in the searching, retrieval and presentation of bibliographic information, it raises an important question as to whether different bibliographic practices can use a similar or compatible set of principles for creating bibliographic records and files. This paper is an attempt to identify areas of possible reconciliation and also address some of the implications of such an issue.
    Type
    a
  19. Wakimoto, J.C.: Scope of the library catalog in times of transition (2009) 0.00
    0.0029000505 = product of:
      0.005800101 = sum of:
        0.005800101 = product of:
          0.011600202 = sum of:
            0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 2993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011600202 = score(doc=2993,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 2993, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2993)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    There has been a flurry of constructive discussion and debate about the future of cataloging and the catalog, from FRBR and RDA on cataloging rules (with a focus on content) to next-generation discovery interfaces for the catalog (with a focus on carrier). A topic that is not receiving as much attention in the midst of these discussions is the scope of the library catalog. This article offers an opinion on the scope of the catalog in a research library, and the role of the catalogers in this time of transition. The article will also elicit some practical approaches that catalogers can take to reposition the catalog for improved user-access and resource discovery.
    Type
    a
  20. Clarke, R.I.: Breaking records : the history of bibliographic records and their influence in conceptualizing bibliographic data (2015) 0.00
    0.0029000505 = product of:
      0.005800101 = sum of:
        0.005800101 = product of:
          0.011600202 = sum of:
            0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011600202 = score(doc=1877,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.
    Type
    a

Authors

Types

  • a 188
  • el 17
  • m 8
  • s 6
  • r 4
  • b 3
  • More… Less…