Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017785288 = product of:
  0.053355865 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 1619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=1619,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1619, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1619)
    0.042646788 = weight(_text_:und in 1619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042646788 = score(doc=1619,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.4407773 = fieldWeight in 1619, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1619)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Für eine korrekte und zielführende Formalerschließung lassen sich drei Ebenen von Leitlinien definieren: Zielsetzungen, Prinzipien und Regeln der Katalogisierung. Der vorliegende Artikel befasst sich hauptsächlich mit den (möglichen) Zielsetzungen und Prinzipien der Katalogisierung. In der Einleitung der im Jahr 2009 herausgegebenen "Erklärung zu den Internationalen Katalogisierungsprinzipien" (ICP) ist vermerkt, dass die dort vorgelegte Prinzipiensammlung aufbaut auf "den großen Katalogtraditionen der Welt". Diese Traditionen werden dann mit drei Referenzen aus der frühen Fachliteratur belegt: Den Schriften von Charles A. Cutter (1904), Shiyali R. Ranganathan (1955) und Seymour Lubetzky (1969). In diesem Artikel werden nach einem kurzen chronologischen Überblick die drei genannten Publikationen und insbesondere die darin enthaltenen Feststellungen zu Sinn und Zweck von international einheitlichen Prinzipien für die bibliothekarische Formalerschließung in ihren geschichtlichen Kontext eingeordnet und ihr jeweiliger Einfluss auf die diversen existierenden Formulierungen von Zielen und Prinzipien näher beleuchtet. Außerdem werden einige bemerkenswert moderne Gedankengänge in den betreffenden Schriften aufgezeigt. Ein abschließendes Fazit fasst die wichtigsten Zielsetzungen und Prinzipien der Katalogisierung noch einmal mit Bezug auf die verwendete Literatur zur Theorie der Informationsorganisation zusammen.

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 1995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=1995,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 1995, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1995)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

What follows are my memories of the events, starting almost five decades ago, that led to the International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD)-still the most successful and widely used international cataloging standard in history. Many of the documents of the time were little more than ephemera (working papers and the like) and some are not now available to me. I have checked my recollections in all the documents to which I have access and apologize in advance for any errors of time or place. I also apologize for the, alas, unavoidable, given the nature of the essay, many repetitions of the words "I" and "me."

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "ISBD: The Bibliographic Content Standard "

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 2625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=2625,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2625, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2625)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The article aims to provide an update on the 2009 Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) and on the status of work on the Statement by the IFLA Cataloguing Section. The article begins with a summary of the drafting process of the ICP by the IME ICC, International Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, focusing in particular on the first meeting (IME ICC1) and on the earlier drafts of the 2009 Statement. It then analyzes both the major innovations and the unsatisfactory aspects of the ICP. Finally, it explains and comments on the recent documents by the IFLA Cataloguing Section relating to the ICP, which express their intention to revise the Statement and to verify the convenience of drawing up an international cataloguing code. The latter intention is considered in detail and criticized by the author in the light of the recent publication of the RDA, Resource Description and Access. The article is complemented by an updated bibliography on the ICP.

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=731,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This book offers a comprehensive guide to the world of metadata, from its origins in the ancient cities of the Middle East, to the Semantic Web of today. The author takes us on a journey through the centuries-old history of metadata up to the modern world of crowdsourcing and Google, showing how metadata works and what it is made of. The author explores how it has been used ideologically and how it can never be objective. He argues how central it is to human cultures and the way they develop. Metadata: Shaping Knowledge from Antiquity to the Semantic Web is for all readers with an interest in how we humans organize our knowledge and why this is important. It is suitable for those new to the subject as well as those know its basics. It also makes an excellent introduction for students of information science and librarianship.

LCSH

Computer applications in arts and humanities

Subject

Computer applications in arts and humanities

0.0014573209 = product of:
  0.008743925 = sum of:
    0.008743925 = weight(_text_:in in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008743925 = score(doc=3859,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14725187 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data - modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid - 1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early 20th - century British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911 - 1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can conceivably be classified. These he first divided into accidental and inseparable attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition - level and copy - level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into physical and non - physical attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstraction hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity - the book - , whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.0013303459 = product of:
  0.007982075 = sum of:
    0.007982075 = weight(_text_:in in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007982075 = score(doc=4141,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.13442196 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data-modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid-1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early twentiethcentury British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911-1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can be classified. These he first divided into "accidental" and "inseparable" attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition-level and copy-level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into "physical" and "non-physical" attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstract hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity-the book-whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.0010517307 = product of:
  0.006310384 = sum of:
    0.006310384 = weight(_text_:in in 4140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006310384 = score(doc=4140,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10626988 = fieldWeight in 4140, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4140)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Among knowledge organizing institutions, libraries have a rich history of depicting persons as information. From personal authority records to descriptions of oral history interviews, libraries have amassed data on persons from a variety of perspectives. Within this set of traditions, however, subtle but significant shifts in practice and conception have occurred, particularly concerning how persons are interpreted and depicted and how such depictions are justified. To explore these issues, we looked to four specific library traditions: authority work, community information, oral history, and "human library" events. Within these traditions, we identified six standards guiding the representation of persons. We performed a content analysis of these standards, along with a semantic alignment and comparison of descriptive elements. From this analysis, we reconstructed an historical timeline and a set of narratives capturing changing definitions of people, a shifting focus from names to identities, and an increasing acceptance of varied sources of justification. Findings show not only a number of critical variations within library practices but also practical and ethical issues concerning the responsibility of libraries as well as the redistribution and reuse of library data on the web.