Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Visintin, G.: Passaggi (1998) 0.16 
    0.16271803 = product of:
  0.43391472 = sum of:
    0.114362255 = weight(_text_:author in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114362255 = score(doc=3053,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.7386374 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
    0.09712243 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09712243 = score(doc=3053,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6806905 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
    0.035972122 = product of:
      0.071944244 = sum of:
        0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071944244 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.09712243 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09712243 = score(doc=3053,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6806905 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
    0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071944244 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
    0.017391251 = product of:
      0.034782503 = sum of:
        0.034782503 = weight(_text_:22 in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034782503 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = 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)
  0.375 = coord(6/16)
    Abstract
    Examines in detail the author cataloguing practices adopted by the Italian National Library Service, as set out in its 1995 Cataloguing Guide (Guida SBN), and discusses how far these practices accord with the standard 1979 RICA author cataloguing rules. Since the author headings prescribed by RICA include personal names, corporate names and titles, this survey looks at all such SBN catalogue entries having an access point function. Presents many examples of standard and variant forms of heading, and reviews control procedures
    Date
    22. 2.1999 20:40:57
  2. Tillett, B.B.: ¬A summary of the treatment of bibliographic relationships in cataloguing rules (1991) 0.16 
    0.156311 = product of:
  0.5001952 = sum of:
    0.088983946 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088983946 = score(doc=6739,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.49506867 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
    0.11214732 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11214732 = score(doc=6739,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.7859937 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
    0.06230555 = product of:
      0.1246111 = sum of:
        0.1246111 = weight(_text_:rules in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1246111 = score(doc=6739,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.7710247 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.11214732 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11214732 = score(doc=6739,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.7859937 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
    0.1246111 = weight(_text_:rules in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1246111 = score(doc=6739,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.7710247 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
  0.3125 = coord(5/16)
    Abstract
    Reports on an analytical study to examine the cataloguing rules in AACR2 to reveal practices for indicating bibliographic relationships in cataloguing records and identify types of relationships. Relationships defined and investigated were: equivalence; derivative; descriptive; whole-part; accompanying; sequential; and shared characteristic relationships.Each type of bibliographic relationship has had several linking devices used to connect bibliographic entities. The technology available to create and maintain a catalogue has greatly influenced the types of linking devices included in the catalogue and prescribed in cataloguing rules
  3. Eversberg, B.: Zur Katalogpolitik der alten Hochschulbibliotheken : Regeln für die alphabetische Katalogisierung (1978) 0.14 
    0.13579834 = product of:
  0.3621289 = sum of:
    0.030953024 = weight(_text_:26 in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030953024 = score(doc=368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
    0.069387615 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069387615 = score(doc=368,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4863088 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
    0.054517355 = product of:
      0.10903471 = sum of:
        0.10903471 = weight(_text_:rules in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10903471 = score(doc=368,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.6746466 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.028848568 = weight(_text_:american in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028848568 = score(doc=368,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26367915 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
    0.069387615 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069387615 = score(doc=368,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4863088 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
    0.10903471 = weight(_text_:rules in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10903471 = score(doc=368,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6746466 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
  0.375 = coord(6/16)
    Abstract
    After a long delay the final edition of RAK has been published. The old university libraries have suffered for years from using the Prussian Instructions which are obsolete and time-consuming; they have hesitated to give their old catalogues up but should do so as soon as possible. A new cataloguing policy is now needed, moving away from traditional practices that still govern even RAK towards simplified rules suitable for future developments such as use in centralised regional catalogues and in automated data processing. Simplified rules are proposed and discussed in relation to American and British minimal cataloguing, with suggestions for changes in basic terminology, general rules, main and subordinate entries, personal name and corporate body entries and subject headings
    Source
    DFW. 26(1978) H.6, S.229-234,236
  4. Tillett, B.B.: RDA, or, The long journey of the catalog to the digital age (2016) 0.12 
    0.12095396 = product of:
  0.3225439 = sum of:
    0.049064454 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049064454 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.34387225 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.031475607 = product of:
      0.062951215 = sum of:
        0.062951215 = weight(_text_:rules in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062951215 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.38950738 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.1011396 = weight(_text_:anglo in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1011396 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485519 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.3836813 = idf(docFreq=202, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.49371263 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.3836813 = idf(docFreq=202, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.028848568 = weight(_text_:american in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028848568 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26367915 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.049064454 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049064454 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.34387225 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.062951215 = weight(_text_:rules in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062951215 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.38950738 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
  0.375 = coord(6/16)
    Abstract
    RDA was created in response to complaints about the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, especially the call for a more international, principle-based content standard that takes the perspective of the conceptual models of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data). The past and ongoing process for continuous improvement to RDA is through the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (known as the JSC, but recently renamed the RDA Steering Committee - RSC) to make RDA even more international and principle-based.
  5. Wessel, H.-P.: RSWK und RAK - die Geschichte einer unendlichen Annäherung? (2005) 0.07 
    0.06911655 = product of:
  0.1843108 = sum of:
    0.02803683 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02803683 = score(doc=3666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19649842 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
    0.017986061 = product of:
      0.035972122 = sum of:
        0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035972122 = score(doc=3666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.057794057 = weight(_text_:anglo in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057794057 = score(doc=3666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485519 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.3836813 = idf(docFreq=202, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.2821215 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.3836813 = idf(docFreq=202, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
    0.016484896 = weight(_text_:american in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016484896 = score(doc=3666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.15067379 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
    0.02803683 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02803683 = score(doc=3666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19649842 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
    0.035972122 = weight(_text_:rules in 3666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035972122 = score(doc=3666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.22257565 = fieldWeight in 3666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3666)
  0.375 = coord(6/16)
    Abstract
    "Für die Schlagwortkatalogisierungsregeln ist im Bereich der Ansetzung von Personennamen, Körperschaftsnamen und Titeln, in denen sie sich mit den Formalkatalogisierungsregeln überlappen, eine Konformität mit diesen aus verschiedenen Gründen sehr wünschenswert, wenn nicht geboten."' Diese These von Peter Baader, seinerzeit Leiter der Abteilung Alphabetische Katalogisierung der Deutschen Bibliothek, stammt aus der Zeit vor dem Erscheinen der ersten Auflage (1986) der RSWK und ist heute immer noch genauso aktuell wie im Jahre 1983. Baader warnte vor einer "Zersplitterung" der jeweiligen Regelungen, konnte diese jedoch nicht verhindern, da die RSWK sich letztlich auf etablierte deutsche Schlagwortregelwerke und die Ergebnisse von Abstimmungen durch deutsche Bibliotheksverbünde und Einzelbibliotheken beriefen. Dies geschah nicht zuletzt, um die Akzeptanz der RSWK als neues Einheitsregelwerk zu erhöhen. Zwanzig Jahre später diskutiert die deutschsprachige bibliothekarische Fachwelt endlich ergebnisorientiert über die Angleichung von RAK und RSWK, jetzt allerdings unter Anpassung der RAK an Struktur und Inhalte der Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) bzw. ihres Nachfolgers. Die folgende Darstellung unternimmt den Versuch, auf der Grundlage dieser Prämisse das Modell eines für die Formal- und Inhaltserschließung gemeinsamen deutschen Regelwerks zu skizzieren und die noch bestehenden Unterschiede zu dokumentieren. Zum besseren Verständnis des doch so langwierigen Annäherungsprozesses soll zunächst die bisherige Entwicklung betrachtet werden. Eckpunkte der Vorgeschichte - Die DBI-Kommission für Erschließung und Katalogmanagement (KEK) beschließt 1991 in ihrem Arbeitsprogramm den Abgleich beider Regelwerke und erklärt 1992 ihre Absicht, die Ansetzungen der Personennamen in RAK und RSWK zu harmonisieren. - Die Expertengruppe Online-Kataloge empfiehlt 1994 einheitliche Ansetzungsformen in RAK und RSWK für Personen- bzw. Körperschaftsnamen sowie eine umfassende Bestimmung von Einheitssachtiteln. - Die Expertengruppen RAK und RSWK beschließen 1996, dass bei der Ansetzung von Personen- und Körperschaftsnamen substanzielle Abweichungen zwischen den beiden Regelwerken vorläufig erhalten bleiben und stattdessen unterschiedliche Ansetzungsformen miteinander verknüpft werden sollen. Kurz nach dem Beginn der Diskussion über einen möglichen Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC 21, AACR2) fasst der Standardisierungsausschuss im Juni 2002 den Beschluss zur Angleichung von RAK und RSWK. Ausgangspunkt sollen die Ansetzungsformen von Personen und Körperschaften sein. Im Dezember 2002 wird von einem RAK-RSWK-Expertentreffen vorgeschlagen, bei Regeländerungen die AACR2 zu berücksichtigen, ein gemeinsames Datenformat für PND, GKD und SWD zu entwickeln, den Änderungsaufwand in den Normdateien abzuschätzen und einen Zeitplan für ein gestuftes Vorgehen bei den Regeländerungen zu entwickeln. Im Mai 2004 beschließen die Expertengruppen Formalerschließung, PND und RSWK/SWD bei getrennten und überwiegend unterschiedlichen Regelwerkstexten einheitliche Ansetzungsformen in RAK und RSWK für Personennamen. Der Standardisierungsausschuss erklärt seine Absicht, einen für Formal- und Inhaltserschließung gemeinsamen Regelwerkstext zu veröffentlichen. Im Januar 2005 wird von Vertretern der Expertengruppen ein von der Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung vorgelegtes Arbeitspaket "Gemeinsame Ansetzungsregeln für Körperschaften" (GKR) beschlossen. Im März 2005 legt die Arbeitsstelle für Standardisierung ein Konzept zur Entwicklung eines gemeinsamen Normdatenformats vor.
  6. Bianchini, C.; Guerrini, M.: From bibliographic models to cataloguing rules : remarks on FRBR, ICP, ISBD, and RDA and the relationships between them (2009) 0.07 
    0.066097766 = product of:
  0.26439106 = sum of:
    0.08498212 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08498212 = score(doc=2973,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.5956042 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
    0.031475607 = product of:
      0.062951215 = sum of:
        0.062951215 = weight(_text_:rules in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062951215 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.38950738 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.08498212 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08498212 = score(doc=2973,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.5956042 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
    0.062951215 = weight(_text_:rules in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062951215 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.38950738 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)
    Abstract
    This article discusses the changes that are occurring in the world of cataloguing. It argues that these changes need to be coordinated. It also discusses the feature of current OPACs, FRBR, the Paris Principles and its proposed replacement (ICP), AACR2 and its proposed replacement (RDA), ISBD, and the relationships between and among these standards. It argues that the syntax of ISBD is an essential component of RDA and all future international and national cataloguing codes.
  7. Oddy, P.: ¬The case for international cooperation in cataloguing : from copy cataloguing to multilingual subject access - experiences within the British Library (1999) 0.05 
    0.05365198 = product of:
  0.2861439 = sum of:
    0.035374884 = weight(_text_:26 in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035374884 = score(doc=5181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
    0.12538451 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12538451 = score(doc=5181,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.87876767 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
    0.12538451 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12538451 = score(doc=5181,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.87876767 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    Presents an outline of a cataloguing strategy that might be adopted for the with reference to how such a strategy is being implemented at the British Library. The first stage has involved cooperation with US libraries and future plans are linked to cooperation with European libraries. Such developments involve countries with different languages and different cataloguing cultures and so present many challenges. Discusses the skills required by staff needed to implement the cataloguing strategy
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:32:26
  8. Dobreski, B.: Authority and universalism : conventional values in descriptive catalog codes (2017) 0.04 
    0.03564185 = product of:
  0.19008985 = sum of:
    0.10898263 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10898263 = score(doc=3876,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.60633284 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
    0.057794057 = weight(_text_:anglo in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057794057 = score(doc=3876,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20485519 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.3836813 = idf(docFreq=202, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.2821215 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.3836813 = idf(docFreq=202, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
    0.023313163 = weight(_text_:american in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023313163 = score(doc=3876,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.21308492 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    Abstract
    Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely
    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.
  9. Rijk Spanhoff, E. de: Principle issues : catalog paradigms, old and new (2002) 0.03 
    0.033975106 = product of:
  0.18120056 = sum of:
    0.06673796 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06673796 = score(doc=5481,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3713015 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
    0.0381542 = product of:
      0.0763084 = sum of:
        0.0763084 = weight(_text_:rules in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0763084 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.47215426 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0763084 = weight(_text_:rules in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0763084 = score(doc=5481,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.47215426 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    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.
  10. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.03 
    0.032771744 = product of:
  0.17478263 = sum of:
    0.08170433 = weight(_text_:author in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08170433 = score(doc=114,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.527708 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.07786095 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07786095 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4331851 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.015217344 = product of:
      0.030434689 = sum of:
        0.030434689 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030434689 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = 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)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)
    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
  11. Burch, V.J.: ¬The divided catalog : Duke University Library Catalog faces the future (1942) 0.02 
    0.023606706 = product of:
  0.18885365 = sum of:
    0.062951215 = product of:
      0.12590243 = sum of:
        0.12590243 = weight(_text_:rules in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12590243 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.77901477 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.12590243 = weight(_text_:rules in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12590243 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.77901477 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Object
    A.L.A. cataloging rules
  12. Coyle, K.; Hillmann, D.: Resource Description and Access (RDA) : cataloging rules for the 20th century (2007) 0.02 
    0.016861932 = product of:
  0.13489546 = sum of:
    0.04496515 = product of:
      0.0899303 = sum of:
        0.0899303 = weight(_text_:rules in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0899303 = score(doc=2525,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.5564391 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0899303 = weight(_text_:rules in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0899303 = score(doc=2525,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.5564391 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    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.
  13. Tillett, B.B.: ¬A taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (1991) 0.01 
    0.013489546 = product of:
  0.10791637 = sum of:
    0.035972122 = product of:
      0.071944244 = sum of:
        0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071944244 = score(doc=6686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.071944244 = weight(_text_:rules in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071944244 = score(doc=6686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4451513 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    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.
  14. Altenhöner, R.; Frodl, C.; Gömpel, R.; Jahns, Y.; Junger, U.; Mahnke, C.; Meyer, A.; Pfeifer, B.; Oehlschläger, S.; Svensson, L.G.: Libraries beyond libraries : Integration, Innovation and Information for all Aus den Veranstaltungen der Sektionen Bibliografie, Katalogisierung, Klassifikation und Indexierung, Knowledge Management und Informationstechnologie sowie der Core Activity ICADS der IFLA Division III (Library Services) beim Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, 77. IFLA-Generalkonferenz in San Juan, Puerto Rico (2011) 0.01 
    0.012266113 = product of:
  0.09812891 = sum of:
    0.049064454 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049064454 = score(doc=174,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.34387225 = fieldWeight in 174, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=174)
    0.049064454 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049064454 = score(doc=174,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.34387225 = fieldWeight in 174, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=174)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    Darin u.a. Bericht über 'Cataloguing Section' (S.871), 'ISBD Review Group' (S.872-873), 'FRBR Review Group' (S.873-874), 'Virtual International authoriy File (VIAF)' (S.875-876), 'Satellite conference on RDA' (S.876-879), 'Classification and Indexing Section' (S.879-882).
  15. Lee, W.-C.: Conflicts of semantic warrants in cataloging practices (2017) 0.01 
    0.011510316 = product of:
  0.09208253 = sum of:
    0.07147641 = weight(_text_:author in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07147641 = score(doc=3871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.46164837 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
    0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02060612 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    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.
    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.
  16. Bianchini, C.; Guerrini, M.: ¬A turning point for catalogs : Ranganathan's possible point of view (2015) 0.01 
    0.01011716 = product of:
  0.08093728 = sum of:
    0.026979093 = product of:
      0.053958185 = sum of:
        0.053958185 = weight(_text_:rules in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053958185 = score(doc=2006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.33386347 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.053958185 = weight(_text_:rules in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053958185 = score(doc=2006,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.33386347 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    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.
  17. Bourdenet, P.: ¬The catalog resisting the Web : an historical perspective (2012) 0.01 
    0.008761509 = product of:
  0.070092075 = sum of:
    0.035046037 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035046037 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.24562302 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
    0.035046037 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035046037 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.24562302 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)
    Abstract
    Libraries are currently seeking to restructure their services and develop new cataloguing standards to position themselves on the web, which has become the main source of information and documents. The current upheaval within the profession is accompanied by the belief that libraries have a major role to play in identifying and supplying content due to their extensive high quality databases, which remain untapped despite efforts to increase catalog performance. They continue to rely on a strategy that has been proven successful since the mid-nineteenth century while seeking other models for their data. Today, they aim to exploit changes brought about by the web to improve content identification. The current intense debate on RDA implementation mirrors this desire for change. The debate is rooted in past efforts and yet tries to incite radical changes as it provides for interoperability from the creation of records through an object modeling in line with web standards and innovations. These innovations are presented through an historical perspective inspired by writings by librarians who are entrusted with helping in the development of bibliographic description standards.
  18. Miksa, S.D.: Educators: what are the cataloging issues students get excited about? : professional and intellectual appeals of cataloging and students' misconceptions of cataloging (2008) 0.00 
    0.0048663095 = product of:
  0.07786095 = sum of:
    0.07786095 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07786095 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4331851 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    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.
  19. Riemer, J.J.: CONSER'S aggregator survey and the work of the PCC Task Group (1999) 0.00 
    0.0036108557 = product of:
  0.05777369 = sum of:
    0.05777369 = weight(_text_:author in 5360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05777369 = score(doc=5360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 5360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5360)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    Abstract
    The author presents the results of the December 1998 CONSER "Survey on Providing Access to Serial Titles within Aggregator Databases." Major findings include 71% of respondents desiring to see full-text serial titles incorporated into the online catalog and nearly 75% interested in acquiring record sets. Also included are an analysis of the numerous survey comments received, strategies toward creating the necessary records and integrating them into OPACs, examples of aggregator analytic records, and other background information on the work of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging's Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases.
  20. Taniguchi, S.: Conceptual modeling of component parts of bibliographic resources in cataloging (2003) 0.00 
    0.0030950191 = product of:
  0.049520306 = sum of:
    0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049520306 = score(doc=4442,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)
    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.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

Themes