Search (110 results, page 2 of 6)

0.03104268 = product of:
  0.06208536 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 5674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=5674,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 5674, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5674)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 5674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=5674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 5674, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The project of the renewal of the Subject Headings for Italian Library Catalogues (Soggettario), financed by the National Central Library in Florence, proposes a pre-coordinated language, both analytic and synthetic, complying with international rules on vocabulary control and structure, based on category analysis of semantic relationships. It envisages a strict distinction between semantic relationships and syntactic ones, and bases its citation order of subject strings on the analysis model for logical relationships. Thanks to its features, the new Soggettario agrees both with the logic of Guidelines for Subject Authority and Reference Entries and of UNIMARC. Authorities, and with FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records). The rigorous structure of the thesaurus will facilitate the transfer of controlled terminology to lists or authority files and archives. The Italian National Bibliography (BNI) will have to play a leading role on the control of coherence of semantic access points. It will validate the strings created by other libraries and control their coherence according to the syntax rules envisaged in the new method.

0.03104268 = product of:
  0.06208536 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=2195,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=2195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

«Current proposals for the future of the Web describe the use of ontologies for making the Web more intelligent for machine and automatic processing. The Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) could be one of the basic building blocks to a »semantic web« when combined with other controlled vocabularies and authority files from such sources as abstracting and indexing services, archives, museums, publishers, etc. Libraries now have an opportunity to make a great contribution to this future and should help make this vision a reality.« This article gives a status report on the VIAF, a cooperative project of the Library of Congress, the Bibliotheque nationale de France, OCLC and the German National Library.

0.030666022 = product of:
  0.061332043 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 1939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=1939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 1939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1939)
    0.034532152 = product of:
      0.069064304 = sum of:
        0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 1939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069064304 = score(doc=1939,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 1939, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1939)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article describes the project to build the initial International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) database by deploying the techniques used to develop the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF). It focuses particularly on the work of the OCLC team in transforming the VIAF "resource file" model of matched data into a robust, operational, and authoritative file of uniquely assigned ISNIs as a base for an ongoing ISNI assignment system, and on the quality assurance validation of the database provided by the British Library and the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The need for future interaction between ongoing ISNI assignment and name authority control in libraries is also explored.

0.029461753 = product of:
  0.058923505 = sum of:
    0.028714169 = weight(_text_:library in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028714169 = score(doc=1166,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21788102 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.030209338 = product of:
      0.060418677 = sum of:
        0.060418677 = weight(_text_:project in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060418677 = score(doc=1166,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.28558412 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.029267319 = product of:
  0.058534637 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=4349,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
    0.027906192 = product of:
      0.055812385 = sum of:
        0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 4349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055812385 = score(doc=4349,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 4349, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4349)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

Footnote

Vortrag, World Library and Information Congress: 71th IFLA General Conference and Council "Libraries - A voyage of discovery", August 14th - 18th 2005, Oslo, Norway.

0.028911047 = product of:
  0.057822093 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 5675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=5675,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 5675, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5675)
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 5675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=5675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 5675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO), founded in 1976, now encompasses some 395 institutions that have collectively developed and maintained a database of more than 2,000,000 authority records in addition to the more than 3,500,000 records created by Library of Congress staff. The NACO family of libraries is expanding at a rate of about 50 new members annually. The membership include institutions from all but four of the 50 U.S. states and 43 institutions in 16 countries within Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia, and Latin America. The NACO model has changed over time to create more cost-effective and user-friendly policies and procedures to meet participants' needs. Increased recognition, especially by library administrators, of the value of authority control also encouraged NACO to flourish. This presentation explains membership requirements, benefits to the participants, as well as the role of the Library of Congress which serves as secretariat to NACO and oversees a variety of training and documentation activities to support program operations. One of the NACO's unique features - the opportunity to participate via a "Funnel Project" in which a group of institutions band together - is also described. Internationally, as the trend towards adopting AACR and MARC 21 increases, the number of NACO partners outside the U.S. also increases. For countries where other standards prevail or where English is not the official language, NACO can serve as a model to consider to provide a framework for a national program while awaiting longer-term development of a more global approach to authority control.

0.027012762 = product of:
  0.054025523 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=2506,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
    0.034882743 = product of:
      0.069765486 = sum of:
        0.069765486 = weight(_text_:project in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069765486 = score(doc=2506,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32976416 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

This paper looks at approaches to name authority control in repository contexts and describes the work of the Names project, which has been funded to investigate issues surrounding the identification of individuals and institutions within repositories of research outputs in the United Kingdom. The problem of uniquely identifying authors has been with us ever since books have been catalogued. National libraries have been creating name authority files for authors of books for many years, starting with card catalogues and now maintaining electronic files in MARC format. However, authority files for the creators of journal articles do not tend to exist in library systems. The increasing use of subject-based and institutional repositories to hold working papers, reports, research data, and pre-refereed and post-referred versions of articles has led to a corresponding rise in the number of authors identified in such systems. Without having a means of uniquely and unambiguously identifying the creators of materials in repositories, it becomes difficult to be sure whether all the materials related to a particular author will be correctly associated with that individual. Names of authors may be entered in more than one way, or more than one author may have exactly the same name. This article looks at recent attempts to address this problem in the repository environment and goes on to explain the approach that is planned to be taken in the Names project.

0.025283787 = product of:
  0.050567575 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5760)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5760, 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=5760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.3, S.166-172

0.025283787 = product of:
  0.050567575 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 120, 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=120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.1, S.31-41

0.025283787 = product of:
  0.050567575 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 46(2002) no.3, S.111-

0.025283787 = product of:
  0.050567575 = sum of:
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 45(2001) no.2, S.73-79

0.025066596 = product of:
  0.05013319 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=190,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
    0.016976917 = product of:
      0.033953834 = sum of:
        0.033953834 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033953834 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

Source

Library resources and technical services. 44(2000) no.3, S.114-121

0.024889842 = product of:
  0.049779683 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 2303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=2303,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 2303, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2303)
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 2303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=2303,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 2303, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2303)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Authority control is a standard practice in the library community that provides consistent, unique, and unambiguous reference to entities such as persons, places, concepts, etc. The ideal way of referring to authority records through unique identifiers is in line with the current linked data principle. When presenting a bibliographic record, the linked authority records are expanded with the authoritative information. This way, any update in the authority records will not affect the indexing of the bibliographic records. The structural information in the authority files can also be leveraged to expand the user's query to retrieve bibliographic records associated with all the variations, narrower terms or related terms. However, in many digital libraries, especially largescale aggregations such as WorldCat and Europeana, name strings are often used instead of authority record identifiers. This is also partly due to the lack of global authority records that are valid across countries and cultural heritage domains. But even when there are global authority systems, they are not applied at scale. For example, in WorldCat, only 15% of the records have DDC and 3% have UDC codes; less than 40% of the records have one or more topical terms catalogued in the 650 MARC field, many of which are too general (such as "sports" or "literature") to be useful for retrieving bibliographic records. Therefore, when a user query is based on a Dewey code, the results usually have high precision but the recall is much lower than it should be; and, a search on a general topical term returns millions of hits without being even complete. All these practices make it difficult to leverage the key benefits of authority files. This is also true for authority files that have been transformed into linked data and enriched with mapping information. There are practical reasons for using name strings instead of identifiers. One is the indexing and query response. The future infrastructure design should take the performance into account while embracing the benefit of linking instead of copying, without introducing extra complexity to users. Notwithstanding all the restrictions, we argue that largescale aggregations also bring new opportunities for better exploiting the benefits of authority records. It is possible to use machine learning techniques to automatically link bibliographic records to authority records based on the manual input of cataloguers. Text mining and visualization techniques can offer a contextual view of authority records, which in return can be used to retrieve missing or mis-catalogued records. In this talk, we will describe such opportunities in more detail.

0.024428055 = product of:
  0.04885611 = sum of:
    0.018950384 = weight(_text_:library in 5042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018950384 = score(doc=5042,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14379413 = fieldWeight in 5042, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5042)
    0.029905723 = product of:
      0.059811447 = sum of:
        0.059811447 = weight(_text_:project in 5042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059811447 = score(doc=5042,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.2827139 = fieldWeight in 5042, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Work on a prototype of the new Soggettario (the main Italian subject heading list) has begun in October 2004 at the Central National Library of Florence (BNCF). BNCF is involving in the renewal of the most used subject indexing tool of Italian libraries. The project had already produced a Feasibility Study, representing a reference for the works which have started recently. An Italian abstract of the Feasibility Study, and more documentation, can be found in the BCNF website at the Web address <http://www bncf.firenze.sbn.it/progetti/>. Together with the project team and the BNCF staff, some young external consultants are working, who are focusing on the terminological component of the system, namely the prototype of the Thesaurus. At the same time, documents are produced which define procedures, establish criteria, and give guidelines. The list of items by which the prototype started consists of: - the terms included in the updates provided by the Italian National Bibliography (BNI) during the period 1986-1998 (already published in the form of lists); - the items introduced from 1999 to 2005 - other items introduced in the past years but never recorded; - some terms from the Soggettario (1956) or from BNI updates (1956-19S5), being especially outdated and needing revision. In building the semantic networks and the hierarchies, and in making the terminological control, of course, more terms have to be included, which come from the Soggettario, the BNI and other authoritative sources both catalographic (various indexing tools) and lexicographic (general and special directories). DDC numbers are also related to the terms in the Thesaurus. The prototype, to be completed in April 2006, will include a sample of terms for each disciplinary area. About 5000 terms will have a complete structure, but 6000 more will be included in the Thesaurus in order to fill the semantic networks, and marked with a different working status. For the prototype the AgroVoc software is used, which has been provided by FAO and adapted by the BNCF computing staff in order to match the specific requirements of the project. Thanks to the potential of this software, we intend to test in future on the multilingual side of terminology. Such work is likely to begin by testing links to the corresponding forms used by the Library of Congress. We are currently beginning to focus on this, and we wish that external parties be involved which are concerned with multilingual terminology in more or less specialistic contexts. We will follow the road of conventions with Italian universities, which could cooperate to this development through their students and graded students. We are also looking at the developments in the work of the British BSI working group on standards for thesauri convened by Stella Dextre Clarke.

0.019732658 = product of:
  0.07893063 = sum of:
    0.07893063 = product of:
      0.15786126 = sum of:
        0.15786126 = weight(_text_:project in 3707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15786126 = score(doc=3707,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.74617106 = fieldWeight in 3707, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reports an Authority Control Project conducted by Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, in order to find a means to reduce the cost of authority control while maintaining, and preferably enhancing, accessibility of materials. Describes current authority control at Griffith University and discusses the mechanics of the project. Looks at the 4 stages of the project: defining the current situation; defining the future catalogue; examining the 7 options; and deciding on a solution

0.018950384 = product of:
  0.07580154 = sum of:
    0.07580154 = weight(_text_:library in 5801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07580154 = score(doc=5801,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.57517654 = fieldWeight in 5801, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5801)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Some international libraries are still using the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition revised, for cataloging even though the Library of Congress and other large libraries have retired it in favor of Resource Description and Access. One of these libraries is the National Library of Greece, which consults the Library of Congress database before establishing authorities. There are cultural differences in names and subjects between the Library of Congress and the National Library, but some National Library terms may be more appropriate for users than the Library of Congress-established forms.

0.017232731 = product of:
  0.068930924 = sum of:
    0.068930924 = weight(_text_:digital in 5354) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068930924 = score(doc=5354,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34865242 = fieldWeight in 5354, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5354)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper proposes an approach for managing vocabulary for reference databases on the Web. The approach is directed at domain specific databases in which much of the referenced material remains in non-digital form. A combination of interactive and manual processes are outlined along with a proposed implementation approach. For this limited class of databases, it is suggested that the approach can significantly improve vocabulary management with relatively low costs in manual effort.

0.016243188 = product of:
  0.06497275 = sum of:
    0.06497275 = weight(_text_:library in 360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06497275 = score(doc=360,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4930085 = fieldWeight in 360, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=360)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority control of Chinese, Japanese and Korean name headings in the Library of Congress. Complains about the lack of vernacular script

Source

Journal of the Hong Kong Library Association. 1999, no.17, S.79-86

0.015231727 = product of:
  0.060926907 = sum of:
    0.060926907 = weight(_text_:digital in 5642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060926907 = score(doc=5642,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 5642, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5642)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The study uses the Database of Names and Biographies (DNB) as an example to explore how in the transformation of original data into linked data, semantic enrichment can enhance engagement in digital humanities. In the preliminary results, we have defined instance-based and schema-based categories of semantic enrichment. In the instance-based category, in which enrichment occurs by enhancing the content of entities, we further determined three types, including: 1) enriching the entities by linking to diverse external resources in order to provide additional data of multiple perspectives; 2) enriching the entities with missing data, which is needed to satisfy the semantic queries; and, 3) providing the entities with access to an extended knowledge base. In the schema-based categories that enrichment occurs by enhancing the relations between the properties, we have identified two types, including: 1) enriching the properties by defining the hierarchical relations between properties; and, 2) specifying properties' domain and range for data reasoning. In addition, the study implements the LOD dataset in a digital humanities platform to demonstrate how instances and entities can be applied in the full texts where the relationship between entities are highlighted in order to bring scholars more semantic details of the texts.

0.014799493 = product of:
  0.059197973 = sum of:
    0.059197973 = product of:
      0.11839595 = sum of:
        0.11839595 = weight(_text_:project in 5407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11839595 = score(doc=5407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5596283 = fieldWeight in 5407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)