Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.094055966 = product of:
  0.18811193 = sum of:
    0.18811193 = sum of:
      0.13902561 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13902561 = score(doc=114,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.68156576 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = 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)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.07838754 = product of:
  0.15677509 = sum of:
    0.15677509 = sum of:
      0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10768877 = score(doc=1934,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = 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)

Abstract

Creativity is now a core requirement for successful organizations. Libraries, like all organizations, need to produce and utilize new ideas to improve user service and experiences. With changes in cataloging such as Resource Description and Access (RDA), the opportunity to rethink cataloging practices is here now. Everyone has creative potential, although catalogers may have both a personality and work environment that make it more difficult. To be able to maximize creative capacity, catalogers need the proper work environment, support from their organization, and a plan for accomplishing creative goals. Given that environment, catalogers may create ideas that will shape the future. (RDA).

Date

29. 5.2015 11:08:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.8, S.894-902

0.046630606 = product of:
  0.09326121 = sum of:
    0.09326121 = product of:
      0.18652242 = sum of:
        0.18652242 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18652242 = score(doc=786,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.9144164 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2008) no.3, S.17-24

0.035109267 = product of:
  0.07021853 = sum of:
    0.07021853 = product of:
      0.14043707 = sum of:
        0.14043707 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14043707 = score(doc=3871,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6884854 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Object

A.L.A. cataloging rules

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=5622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 5622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 28(1999) no.4, S.71-89

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=2254,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 2254, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of some of the important recent developments in cataloging theory and practice and online catalog design. Changes in cataloging theory and practice include the incorporation of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records principles into catalogs, the new Resource Description and Access cataloging manual, and the new CONSER Standard Record. Web 2.0 functionalities and advances in search technology and results displays are influencing online catalog design. The paper ends with hypothetical scenarios in which a catalog, enhanced by the developments described, fulfills the tasks of finding serials articles and titles.

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=1877,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.3/4, S.286-302

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=1889,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 1889, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogs or discovery tools (NGCs) overlay existing bibliographic data and repackage it in displays that differ from the traditional catalog. Many implementations of NGCs have revealed errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the underlying data that had not been apparent in the traditional catalog. This study explored the effect of NGCs on cataloging functions and catalogers in academic libraries, examining catalogers' participation in the selection and implementation processes, identifying and correcting data problems, changes to procedures or workflow, and staffing.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 49(2011) no.3, S.179-207

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=5481,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent attempts to assess the adequacy of AACR as a descriptive cataloging code for the online environment have focused attention on cataloging principles. This paper looks at some old and new attempts to isolate the fundamental principles underlying AACR. It considers catalog objectives, principles, and rules and looks at how these relate to one another. It analyzes the relationship of these principles and rules to the final product, the library catalog, pointing out differences (in this regard) between catalogs that are paper-based and those that are electronic. Finally, it comments on the present effort of the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR to formulate a statement of principles to be included in a new introduction to AACR.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification; Part I

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2002) nos.1/2, S.37-59

0.024826001 = product of:
  0.049652003 = sum of:
    0.049652003 = product of:
      0.099304006 = sum of:
        0.099304006 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099304006 = score(doc=789,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.48683268 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2008) no.3, S.25-37

0.023076165 = product of:
  0.04615233 = sum of:
    0.04615233 = product of:
      0.09230466 = sum of:
        0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09230466 = score(doc=4463,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper proposes a conceptual model for cataloging which gives primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity, with the aim of approaching critical issues in cataloging, such as the so-called "format variations" and "content versus carrier" issues. The term "expression" is defined as "the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic notation, etc." In this paper, the model by the IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is first re-examined and at the same time the outline of a new model giving primacy to expression-level entity is illustrated by indicating differences from the FRBR model. Second, by applying the concept "user tasks," found in the FRBR model, to the new model outlined in this paper, a scenario on how entities are used by users is created. Third, some examples of bibliographic record equivalents in line with the new model are shown.

0.023076165 = product of:
  0.04615233 = sum of:
    0.04615233 = product of:
      0.09230466 = sum of:
        0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09230466 = score(doc=2006,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Since the end of the last century, catalogs have been changing more and more quickly. This change is following a recognizable course, beginning with the publication of Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, passing through the reorganization of international cataloging principles, the revision of international standards of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (International Standard for Bibliographic Description), and the foundation of new cataloging codes, such as Resource Description and Access. While principles, models, and rules are well established, bibliographic formats seem to be a bottleneck and users seem far from libraries. This article aims to present an overview of current changes, potential convergences, developments, and weak points from Ranganathan's point of view.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.3/4, S.341-351

0.02220505 = product of:
  0.0444101 = sum of:
    0.0444101 = product of:
      0.0888202 = sum of:
        0.0888202 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0888202 = score(doc=2525,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43543637 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

0.021981878 = product of:
  0.043963756 = sum of:
    0.043963756 = product of:
      0.08792751 = sum of:
        0.08792751 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08792751 = score(doc=1878,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.3/4, S.303-313

0.021981878 = product of:
  0.043963756 = sum of:
    0.043963756 = product of:
      0.08792751 = sum of:
        0.08792751 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08792751 = score(doc=1929,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 1929, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1929)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article analyzes the literature concerning uses of notes in bibliographic records and also certain grammatical conventions used by catalogers to communicate information about the resources they are describing. It shows that these types of data do not aid the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) user tasks in the resource discovery process. It also describes how general notes are addressed in Resource Description Access (RDA), and advocates that cataloging practices involving most general notes and such conventions as bracketing and abbreviations should be discontinued with the widespread use of RDA.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.4, S.420-427

0.021036994 = product of:
  0.042073987 = sum of:
    0.042073987 = product of:
      0.084147975 = sum of:
        0.084147975 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084147975 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = 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

0.01884161 = product of:
  0.03768322 = sum of:
    0.03768322 = product of:
      0.07536644 = sum of:
        0.07536644 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07536644 = score(doc=4442,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.36948 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines differences in modeling component parts of bibliographic resources between two conceptual models in cataloging, as a continuation of the previous study that proposed a model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity. First, the model by IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) was examined from the viewpoint of modeling component parts when each part in itself is a resource to be described. The examination is done on two types of component parts, a content part and a document part, which are different in terms of whether they are physically independent. This results in different structures for these two component types. Secondly, by applying the viewpoint to the model that the author proposed earlier, it has become clear that both component types can be modeled basically in the same manner, indicating the model's superiority in consistency to the FRBR model in this respect.

0.01884161 = product of:
  0.03768322 = sum of:
    0.03768322 = product of:
      0.07536644 = sum of:
        0.07536644 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07536644 = score(doc=1883,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.36948 = fieldWeight in 1883, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 1971 the eminent American scholar G. Thomas Tanselle wrote: "the day has not yet come when one can learn anything of a library's holdings of jackets by consulting its catalogue." Forty-four years later, library catalogs still do not allow that. Book-jackets, whose "original sin" is their being physically separate from the book, are nevertheless essential documents for the history of publishing. This article aims to show the necessity for access to the information about a single book's book-jacket directly from the library catalog; it considers the reasons why catalogers usually "distrust" book-jackets; and it aims to determine whether there is any change in attitude about taking book-jackets into account in cataloging.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.3/4, S.368-381

0.01776404 = product of:
  0.03552808 = sum of:
    0.03552808 = product of:
      0.07105616 = sum of:
        0.07105616 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07105616 = score(doc=6686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A bibliographic relationship is an association between two or more bibliographic items or works. In an effort to provide the theoretical base for a conceptual model of the library catalog, past and future, the bibliographic relationship is examined here in detail. In this first of a series of reports, a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships is derived from an analysis of cataloging rules and types of bibliographic items.