-
Treichler, W.: Katalogisierungsregeln, Kataloge und Benützer in schweizerischen Bibliotheken (1986)
0.02
0.019114517 = product of:
0.038229033 = sum of:
0.038229033 = product of:
0.07645807 = sum of:
0.07645807 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07645807 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16468045 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047026973 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 8.10.2000 14:22:27
-
Visintin, G.: Passaggi (1998)
0.01
0.012743012 = product of:
0.025486024 = sum of:
0.025486024 = product of:
0.05097205 = sum of:
0.05097205 = weight(_text_:22 in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05097205 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16468045 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047026973 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 2.1999 20:40:57
-
Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006)
0.01
0.011150135 = product of:
0.02230027 = sum of:
0.02230027 = product of:
0.04460054 = sum of:
0.04460054 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04460054 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16468045 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047026973 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
-
Theimer, S.: ¬A cataloger's resolution to become more creative : how and why (2012)
0.01
0.011150135 = product of:
0.02230027 = sum of:
0.02230027 = product of:
0.04460054 = sum of:
0.04460054 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04460054 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16468045 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.047026973 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 29. 5.2015 11:08:22
-
Petrucciani, A.: Quality of library catalogs and value of (good) catalogs (2015)
0.01
0.009448521 = product of:
0.018897042 = sum of:
0.018897042 = product of:
0.07558817 = sum of:
0.07558817 = weight(_text_:authors in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07558817 = score(doc=1878,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21438722 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.047026973 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The quality of large catalogs is uneven and often low, but this issue is underrated and understudied. Library catalogs often fail to communicate correct and clear information to users and their low quality is not simply due to faults, duplications, and so on but also to unwise cataloging standards and policies. While there is plenty of uncontrolled information about books and other publications, the need for good-quality bibliographic information is apparent and library catalogs may provide a trustworthy map of the publishing output, with full control of editions, works, authors, and so on and effective navigation functions, which are lacking in today's information-rich environment.
-
Coyle, K.; Hillmann, D.: Resource Description and Access (RDA) : cataloging rules for the 20th century (2007)
0.01
0.006748944 = product of:
0.013497888 = sum of:
0.013497888 = product of:
0.053991552 = sum of:
0.053991552 = weight(_text_:authors in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053991552 = score(doc=2525,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21438722 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.047026973 = queryNorm
0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.
