Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

0.016857289 = product of:
  0.05900051 = sum of:
    0.050297216 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 2295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050297216 = score(doc=2295,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15681393 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.32074454 = fieldWeight in 2295, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2295)
    0.008703294 = product of:
      0.026109882 = sum of:
        0.026109882 = weight(_text_:29 in 2295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026109882 = score(doc=2295,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2295, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2295)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The paper provides an illustration of the benefits of subject authority control improving multilingual subject access in NEBIS - Netzwerk von Bibliotheken und Informationsstellen in der Schweiz. This example of good practice focuses on some important aspects of classification and indexing. NEBIS subject authorities comprise a classification scheme and multilingual subject descriptor system. A bibliographic system supported by subject authority control empowers libraries as it enables them to expand and adjust vocabulary and link subjects to suit their specific audience. Most importantly it allows the management of different subject vocabularies in numerous languages. In addition, such an enriched subject index creates re-usable and shareable source of subject statements that has value in the wider context of information exchange. The illustrations and supporting arguments are based on indexing practice, subject authority control and use of classification in ETH-Bibliothek, which is the largest library within the NEBIS network.

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.014449425 = product of:
  0.050572984 = sum of:
    0.040129032 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040129032 = score(doc=310,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Authority files have played an important role in improving the quality of indexing and subject cataloging. Although authorities can significantly improve search by increasing the number of access points, they are rarely an integral part of the information retrieval process, particularly end-users searches. A retrieval prototype, searchFAST, was developed to test the feasibility of using an authority file as an index to bibliographic records. searchFAST uses FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) as an index to OCLC's WorldCat.org bibliographic database. The searchFAST methodology complements, rather than replaces, existing WorldCat.org access. The bibliographic file is searched indirectly; first the authority file is searched to identify appropriate subject headings, then the headings are used to retrieve the matching bibliographic records. The prototype demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of using an authority file as an index. Searching the authority file leverages authority control work by increasing the number of access points while supporting a simple interface designed for end-users.

Date

29. 5.2015 20:57:41

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.014071422 = product of:
  0.049249973 = sum of:
    0.03453757 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03453757 = score(doc=4349,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.29892567 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
    0.014712405 = weight(_text_:internet in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014712405 = score(doc=4349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.1304718 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Czech authority file of topical terms is intended to form a base for multilingual controlled vocabulary. The aim of the proposal is to provide users of online library catalogues and internet services of cooperating institutions with an indexing and retrieval tool which enables multilingual and cross-domain searching ("one-stop" seamless searching). The goal of the project is to establish a multilingual subject approach to catalogues of participating libraries (Czechia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Slovakia, and Slovenia). In practice this means that a user in any of these countries would enter a query in his local language and receive hits from all the catalogues. The initiative is complying with the main goals currently defined by IFLA for the activity of Indexing and Classification Section, it means: Changing Roles of Subject Access Tools (Berlin), Implementation and Adaptation of Global Tools for Subject Access to Local Needs (Buenos Aires), and Cataloguing and Subject Tools for Global Access: International Partnerships (Oslo).

Content

The aim of this initiative is to provide the users of online library catalogues and information gateways of cooperating libraries with a prototype for multilingual subject searching in online environment. Library collections of these libraries are large and without any doubt very valuable for researchers throughout Europe. What is needed is a standardized, authorized indexing and retrieval tool which would bring together all their catalogues and databases and enable multilingual subject searching. At the beginning of the project, a number of factors affecting subject indexing in current environment and cross-searching for subjects have been identified. These factors include - standardization of subject retrieval process and indexing and classification tools - subject retrieval methods - possibility of interoperability among different indexing and classification schemes - multilingualism issue - possibility to increase precision and recall trough Z39.50 protocol and its profiles and to apply authority control in subject retrieval process - need for cooperation

0.011204154 = product of:
  0.039214537 = sum of:
    0.027029924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027029924 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
    0.0121846115 = product of:
      0.036553834 = sum of:
        0.036553834 = weight(_text_:29 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036553834 = score(doc=3690,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

»Sacherschließung - können wir uns die noch leisten?« Angesichts des zunehmend geringeren Gesamtetats, der den Bibliotheken zur Verfügung steht, drängt sich diese Frage nahezu auf. Sacherschließung ist teuer und für das moderne Bibliothekswesen nur dann noch tragbar, wenn der Mitteleinsatz in einem angemessenen Verhältnis zum Ergebnis steht, das sich in der Leistungsfähigkeit des Produkts widerspiegelt. Im deutschsprachigen Raum trägt die SWD wesentlich zu einer effektiveren Sacherschließungsarbeit bei. Ihre Pflege und Weiterentwicklung ist jedoch mit einem enormen Aufwand gekoppelt, der nur mit einer entsprechenden Nutzung der Daten für das thematische Retrieval in den OPACs gerechtfertigt werden kann.

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 17(2005) H.2, S.19-29

0.010806204 = product of:
  0.03782171 = sum of:
    0.025746709 = weight(_text_:internet in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025746709 = score(doc=167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
    0.012075002 = product of:
      0.036225006 = sum of:
        0.036225006 = weight(_text_:22 in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036225006 = score(doc=167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13375512 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 167, 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=167)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Theme

Internet

0.00960356 = product of:
  0.03361246 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=2298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2298)
    0.010443954 = product of:
      0.03133186 = sum of:
        0.03133186 = weight(_text_:29 in 2298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03133186 = score(doc=2298,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2298, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2298)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A classification scheme represents a powerful indexing and retrieval tool. Obsolete terminology and misalignment between widely used systems is key impediment to better use of classification. This paper looks into the issues caused by delay in the revision of UDC class of medical sciences and possible solutions. Following a short description of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) and of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Classification, the author analyses the notations and captions included in 61 class of the UDC Summary. All the classes, subclasses and special auxiliary subdivisions are covered in order to find compatible notations between both schemes, out-of-date vocabulary and out-of-date subdivisions of UDC. As a result of this study and in light of the most recent developments in medical sciences, one subdivision is questioned and several vocabulary expressions included in the caption fields are proposed to be changed or updated.

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.007838942 = product of:
  0.027436296 = sum of:
    0.009653544 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009653544 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.017782751 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017782751 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15681393 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.113400325 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).

0.0063053165 = product of:
  0.044137213 = sum of:
    0.044137213 = weight(_text_:internet in 3847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044137213 = score(doc=3847,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.3914154 = fieldWeight in 3847, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3847)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Internet

0.0062226662 = product of:
  0.04355866 = sum of:
    0.04355866 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04355866 = score(doc=3691,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.15681393 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2777729 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

"Nach Augsburg, Bielefeld und Leipzig hat der Standardisierungsausschuss beim 94. Deutschen Bibliothekartag in Düsseldorf zum vierten Mal in Folge eine Veranstaltung zum Themenfeld Standardisierung durchgeführt, die vom Vorsitzenden, Berndt Dugall, moderiert wurde. Auch in diesem Jahr konnten dafür wieder zwei Referenten aus dem Ausland gewonnen werden, die einen Einblick in internationale Aktivitäten gewährten. Den Auftakt bildete Jeffrey Garrett von der Northwestern University Library in Evanston, Illinois mit seinem Vortrag »Entscheidend auch hier der Einstieg - Wandel und Kontinuität im Ethos des Katalogisierens in den USA«. Zunächst erläuterte der Referent die Losung aus dem Titel, die aus dem Werk »Bücherlabyrinthe: Suchen und Finden im alexandrinischen Zeitalter« von Nikolaus Wegmann stammt. Dieses Buch erinnere daran, dass der Katalog in der Nachfolge von Schrettinger und Dewey den Einstieg des Benutzers in die ansonsten gewaltige Unordnung der Bibliothek ermögliche, und dadurch die »Sichtbarkeit« der modernen Forschungsbibliothek erst her- bzw. sicherstellt. Garrett stellte die Frage nach dem Sinn von Katalogen im elektronischen Zeitalter, einer Zeit, in der bibliografische Angaben beziehungsweise Schlagworte durch Volltextrecherchen, die sich gleichzeitig auf mehrere tausend Publikationen erstrecken können, umgangen werden können, und in welcher der Inhalt eines Textes in ständigem Wandel begriffen ist. In seinem Vortrag hat der Referent einige Entwicklungen auf dem Gebiet des Katalogisierens in den USA teils theoretisch, teils konkret nachgezeichnet, in der Absicht, sowohl den Wandel als auch die Kontinuität im Bereich der Erschließung aufzuzeigen. Die bisweilen geäußerte Feststellung, dass Kataloge auf den Müllhaufen der Geschichte gehörten, bezeichnete Garrett als maßlos übertrieben und nur angesichts des »Google-Schocks« in den USA zu erklären. Der Katalog diene nach wie vor als Beschreibung des Volltexts. Der Moderator kommentierte dazu, dass der Gedanke des »Vanishing catalogue« vergleichbar sei mit dem Traum vom papierlosen Büro. Patrick Le Boeuf, der Vorsitzende der IFLA FRBR Review Group, referierte in seinem Vortrag »Zwischen Traum und Wirklichkeit« über die Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Anhand von leicht verständlichen Beispielen erläuterte er, was die FRBR mit den vier Entitäten der Gruppe 1: Werk (work), Fassung (expression), Erscheinungsform (manifestation) und Exemplar (item) sind. Ausführlich ging er auch darauf ein, was die FRBR nicht sind und was sie nicht leisten können. Es handelt sich dabei weder um eine Norm, noch um ein Datenmodell oder gar ein Format. Dennoch haben die FRBR Einfluss auf die Standardisierungsaktivitäten auf internationaler wie nationaler Ebene. In einigen Systemen, Prototypen und Projekten lässt sich das Potenzial des FRBRModells für bibliografische Informationen bereits aufzeigen. Ganz konkret werden die FRBR in die Überlegungen der IFLA Meetings of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code einbezogen und haben Einzug in die »Frankfurt principles« gefunden, deren Ziel eine Aktualisierung der »Paris principles« ist, und die bei nachfolgenden Regionaltreffen bis 2007 von Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus allen Teilen der WeIt weiter diskutiert und modifiziert werden. Durch die gegenwärtige Revision der Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) werden die FRBR auch Einzug in das internationale Regelwerk halten.
Mit großer Spannung wurde der Vortrag von Elisabeth Niggemann und Reiner Diedrichs über das weitere Vorgehen nach Abschluss des Projekts »Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2)« erwartet. Unter dem programmatischen Titel »Hinter dem Horizont geht es weiter« stellten der Vorsitzende der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme und die Generaldirektorin Der Deutschen Bibliothek vor, wie die Internationalisierung der deutschen Standards im Einzelnen aussehen soll, und welche Maßnahmen erforderlich sind. Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme hatte in ihrer Herbstsitzung 2004 verschiedene Beschlüsse getroffen, welche die Zusammenarbeit der Verbundsysteme fördern und erleichtern sollen. Dazu gehören u. a. die Entwicklung eines prototypischen Verfahrens für einen Neukatalogisierungsdienst mit einheitlichen Datenstrukturen und einheitlichen Formatanwendungen, die Verwendung von MARC21 als einheitlichem Austauschformat und die Entwicklung eines Matchkey-Verfahrens zur verbundübergreifenden Titelerkennung. Außerdem wurden grundsätzliche Anforderungen an das künftige Regelwerk und für eine Reorganisation der Normdatenarbeit formuliert, die die Ziele der Arbeitsgemeinschaft effektiv unterstützen sollen. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat diese Beschlüsse in seiner 9. Sitzung im Dezember 2004 begrüßt, bestätigt und konkretisiert. Nun gilt es, die Beschlüsse zügig umzusetzen, um die gesteckten Ziele zu verfolgen: einfacher Zugang zu bibliografischer Information national wie international für wissenschaftliche und andere persönliche Nutzer, leichte Austauschbarkeit von bibliografischer Information zwischen professionellen Benutzergruppen und Anwendern und last but not least Kostenreduktion bei der Erschließung. Im Anschluss stellte Renate Gömpel, Die Deutsche Bibliothek, die IFLA-CDNL Allianz für Bibliografische Standards (ICABS) vor, die während des Weltkongresses Bibliothek und Information in Berlin als ein neues strategisches Vorhaben ins Leben gerufen wurde. Mit ICABS streben die National Library of Australia, die Library of Congress, die British Library, die Koninklijke Bibliotheek der Niederlande und Die Deutsche Bibliothek gemeinsam mit der Biblioteca Nacional Portugals, der IFLA und der Conference of Directors of National Libraries (CDNL) die Fortsetzung und Unterstützung von Schlüsselaktivitäten im Bereich der bibliografischen und der Ressourcenkontrolle sowie damit zusammenhängender Formatstandards an. Die Allianz führt damit die Arbeit der Geschäftsstellen der früheren IFLA-Kernprogramme UBCIM (Universal Bibliographic Control and International MARC) und UDT (Universal Dataflow and Telecommunications) fort. In dem Vortrag wurde ein Überblick über Ziele und Vorhaben von ICABS, ihre Organisation sowie deren Arbeit als Dach für facettenreiche Aktivitäten im Bereich bibliografischer Standards gegeben. Koordiniert wird die Arbeit von ICABS durch das Advisory Board, das aus Vertretern aller beteiligten Institutionen und Organisationen besteht und dessen Vorsitz gegenwärtig ebenso wie das Sekretariat bei Der Deutschen Bibliothek angesiedelt ist. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat bereits erste Planungen für eine Veranstaltung beim 95. Deutschen Bibliothekartag in Dresden angestellt. Dort soll über den Stand der Internationalisierung des deutschen Regelwerks, den Umstieg auf MARC21 und die Weiterentwicklung der Normdateien berichtet werden. Darüber hinaus erwartet die Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer ein Bericht aus dem Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (JSC) über den Stand der AACR3. Es wird sicherlich spannend, merken Sie sich diesen Termin vor."

0.0047772657 = product of:
  0.033440858 = sum of:
    0.033440858 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033440858 = score(doc=1970,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1970, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1970)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Authority files have played an important role in improving the quality of indexing and subject cataloging. Although authorities can significantly improve searching by increasing the number of access points, they are rarely an integral part of the information retrieval process, particularly end-users' searches. A retrieval prototype, searchFAST, was developed to test the feasibility of using an authority file as an index to bibliographic records. searchFAST uses Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) as an index to OCLC's WorldCat.org bibliographic database. The searchFAST prototype complements, rather than replaces, existing WorldCat.org access. The bibliographic file is searched indirectly; first the authority file is searched to identify appropriate subject headings, then the headings are used to retrieve the matching bibliographic records. The prototype demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of using an authority file as an index. Searching the authority file leverages authority control work by increasing the number of access points while supporting a simple interface designed for end-users.

Theme

Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.0047772657 = product of:
  0.033440858 = sum of:
    0.033440858 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033440858 = score(doc=5490,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 5490, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5490)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We aim to trace the scenario of the use of controlled vocabularies as tools of research and work in the scope of representation and retrieval of information in institutions that have archival collections, in order to highlight the need for greater emphasis on the subject of representation of archival information in the academic field, increasing the visibility for the study and analysis of the collections in question and their contents, relevant to the information society. We investigate the current scenario of the use of controlled vocabularies in the archival collections of Rio de Janeiro, the theoretical-methodological changes arising from the impacts of information technologies on analysis, representation, such as classification and indexing, content retrieval, information needs in the contemporary world. The representation of information is associated with classification and retrieval of information to the organization of knowledge in information science. There is a gap in the archival area regarding the expression representation of information from the description of the nineteenth century. As for the theoretical-methodological aspect, there was a theoretical survey of the representation of information in publications in the interdisciplinary areas; as to the op-erational methodology, questionnaires were applied to information agencies on the use of controlled vocabularies, in relation to the treatment of information in archival collections. We conclude by demonstrating the importance of adopting the concept of information representation in archives, using controlled vocabularies associated with new information technologies and informational ecology, consolidating the area as a scientific and interdisciplinary field for information science.

0.004413049 = product of:
  0.030891342 = sum of:
    0.030891342 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030891342 = score(doc=5480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5480, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5480)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Libraries are bridges between information and the library user in the context of information retrieval. Library users want to access information resources according to their topic. Therefore, it is important to create subject entries in bibliographic records. If subject added entries and their redirects are done correctly, it will make it easier for users to access the information they are looking for. In this article the collaborative studies and projects made in Turkey are being discussed.

0.0042035445 = product of:
  0.02942481 = sum of:
    0.02942481 = weight(_text_:internet in 5354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942481 = score(doc=5354,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 5354, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5354)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Internet

0.0042035445 = product of:
  0.02942481 = sum of:
    0.02942481 = weight(_text_:internet in 5422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942481 = score(doc=5422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.2609436 = fieldWeight in 5422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5422)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Demonstrates through case studies how authority control simply does not work. Shows how the case studies were carried out using BOPAC2 which provides facility for downloading large files and a greater range of displays than normal OPACs. Stresses that authority control is important not only to library catalogues but also to information on the Internet. Because it is so important and because it is so expensive priority action is needed to rectify the situation. Suggests a number of ways in which this might be done.

0.003900621 = product of:
  0.027304346 = sum of:
    0.027304346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027304346 = score(doc=3083,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Authority control is a quite recent term in the long history of cataloguing, although the underlying principle is among the very early principles of bibliographic control. Bibliographic control is a Field in transformation by the rapid expansion of the WWW, which has brought new problems to infonnation discovery and retrieval, creating new challenges and requirements in information management. In a comprehensive approach, authority control is presented as one of the most promising library activities in this respect. The evolution of work methods and standards for the sharing of authority files is reviewed, showing the imbalance in developments and practical achievements between name and subject authority, in an international perspective. The need to improve the network availability and usability of authority information assets in more effective and holistic ways is underlyned; and a new philosophy and scope is proposed for library authority work, based an the primacy of the linking function of authority data, and by expanding the finding, relating and informing functions of authority records. Some of these aspects are being addressed in several projects dealing with knowledge organization systems, notably to cope with multilingual needs and to enable semantic interoperability among different systems. Library practice itself should evolve in the same direction, thereby providing practical experience to inform new or improved principles and standards for authority work, while contributing to enhance local information services and to promote their involvement in the WWW environment.

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.003900621 = product of:
  0.027304346 = sum of:
    0.027304346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027304346 = score(doc=5669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

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

0.003900621 = product of:
  0.027304346 = sum of:
    0.027304346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027304346 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.

0.0036781013 = product of:
  0.025746709 = sum of:
    0.025746709 = weight(_text_:internet in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025746709 = score(doc=5655,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11276311 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.22832564 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.9522398 = idf(docFreq=6276, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Authority control is necessary for meeting the catalog's objectives of enabling users to find the works of an author and to collocate all works of a person or corporate body. This article looks at the current state of authority control as compared to the visions of the 1979 LITA (Library Information and Technology Association) Institutes and the 1984 Authority Control Interest Group. It explores a new view of IFLA's Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) and a future vision of a virtual international authority file as a building block for the Semantic Web and reinforces the importance of authority control to improve the precision of searches of large databases or the Internet.

0.0034813178 = product of:
  0.024369223 = sum of:
    0.024369223 = product of:
      0.07310767 = sum of:
        0.07310767 = weight(_text_:29 in 4357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07310767 = score(doc=4357,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13436082 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03819578 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 4357, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4357)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.47-59

0.0033097868 = product of:
  0.023168506 = sum of:
    0.023168506 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023168506 = score(doc=4811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11553899 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03819578 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4811)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

As more online databases are integrated into digital libraries, the issue of quality control of the data becomes increasingly important, especially as it relates to the effective retrieval of information. Authority work, the need to discover and reconcile variant forms of strings in bibliographical entries, will become more critical in the future. Spelling variants, misspellings, and transliteration differences will all increase the difficulty of retrieving information. We investigate a number of approximate string matching techniques that have traditionally been used to help with this problem. We then introduce the notion of approximate word matching and show how it can be used to improve detection and categorization of variant forms. We demonstrate the utility of these approaches using data from the Astrophysics Data System and show how we can reduce the human effort involved in the creation of authority files