Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Eversberg, B.: Zur Zukunft der Katalogisierung : ... jenseits RAK und AACR (2004) 0.01 
    0.0101254005 = product of:
  0.050627 = sum of:
    0.050627 = weight(_text_:und in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050627 = score(doc=3632,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.4848303 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    "Katalogisierung" klingt in manchen Ohren altmodisch. Man redet heute von "Metadaten"! Gemeint ist aber nichts völlig anderes. Es gibt nur viele neue Formen, Praktiken und Nutzungen, während sich früher Katalogdaten fast nur in Katalogen und Bibliographien befanden. "Metadaten" ist nur ein neuer Oberbegriff, aber in einer Katalogdatenbank haben wir längst mehr und andersartige Datenelemente und Funktionen als in Zettelkatalogen. Es ist notwendig, weiter auszugreifen als es die klassischen Regelwerke, RAK und AACR, getan haben, und deren hergebrachte Konzepte zu überdenken.
    Footnote
    Präsentation zum Vortrag "Zur Zukunft der Katalogisierung" während des Österreichischen Bibliothekartages in Linz 22.09.2004, Themenkreis: Google und die Zukunft der bibliothekarischen Erschließung. - Zuletzt aktualisiert: 15.07.2008.
  2. Vorndran, A.: Hervorholen, was in unseren Daten steckt! : Mehrwerte durch Analysen großer Bibliotheksdatenbestände (2018) 0.01 
    0.006263467 = product of:
  0.031317335 = sum of:
    0.031317335 = weight(_text_:und in 4601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031317335 = score(doc=4601,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.29991096 = fieldWeight in 4601, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4601)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) verfolgt das Ziel, den unter Culturegraph.org verfügbaren großen Datenbestand von mehr als 160 Millionen Titeldaten deutschsprachiger Bibliotheksverbünde sowie der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek und der British National Bibliography über Analysen, Verknüpfungen und Auswertungen in größerem Umfang nutzbar zu machen. Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick, welche Themenstellungen und Methoden bislang im Zentrum stehen. Dies ist einerseits die Bündelung von Werken, die erlaubt, mehrere Ausgaben, Auflagen oder Übersetzungen eines Werks zusammenzuführen. Inhaltserschließende Informationen wie Klassifikation oder verbale Erschließung, ebenso wie Normdatenverknüpfungen, können so auf alle Mitglieder eines Bündels übertragen werden, so dass ein Gewinn an Standardisierung und Erschließungstiefe zu erreichen ist. Andererseits können über bibliothekarische Daten hinaus auch externe Datenquellen zur Anreicherung herangezogen werden. Dies wird anhand eines Abgleichs von Personen in der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) und der Datenbank Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) dargestellt. Unter Verwendung der Culturegraph-Titeldaten werden Personen mittels der von ihnen verfassten Publikationen abgeglichen und zusammengeführt. Abschließend werden einige statistische Auswertungen des Datenbestandes vorgestellt.
  3. Eversberg, B.: Was sollen Bibliothekskataloge? (2002) 0.01 
    0.0061369194 = product of:
  0.030684596 = sum of:
    0.030684596 = weight(_text_:und in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030684596 = score(doc=3113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Sinn von Katalogen und Erschließung im Umfeld der Debatte RAK - AACR, MAB - MARC
  4. Schürmann, H.: Sacherschliessung nach RDA (2015) 0.01 
    0.0057177367 = product of:
  0.028588682 = sum of:
    0.028588682 = weight(_text_:und in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028588682 = score(doc=1831,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.27378 = fieldWeight in 1831, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1831)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Die Resource Description and Access (RDA) wird für den deutschsprachigen Raum das neue Regelwerk für die bibliothekarische Erschliessung der Bestände. In diesem Regelwerk wird auch die Sacherschliessung neu geregelt. Zurzeit sind diese Seiten noch leer. Doch wie soll ein Regelwerk für die Sacherschliessung aussehen? Kriterien für eine Regelung fehlen, zu stark hat sich das Umfeld der Inhaltserschliessung in den letzten Jahren geändert. Auch von der Schlagworttheorie her sind noch keine Hinweise in Sicht. Deshalb wird in verschiedenen Gremien intensiv diskutiert, wie eine zukunftsfähige Sacherschliessung aussehen könnte. In welchem Rahmen bewegt sich die Diskussion und woran soll sich die Regelwerksentwicklung für den Sachkatalog orientieren? Der Beitrag erwägt zwischen der Sachkataloggeschichte einerseits und dem modernen Datenmanagement im Netz andererseits die Bedeutung und die Rolle eines Sacherschliessungsregelwerks.
    "Fazit: Die Sacherschliessung im Bibliothekskontext richtet sich nach dem Angebot und dem Zugang, den die Bibliothek bietet. Ein Regelwerk muss so gestaltet sein, dass die Bibliothek die Erschliessungstiefe selbst bestimmen kann. Im Datenaustausch macht dann die Übernahme von Fremddaten nur unter ähnlichen Bibliotheken Sinn. Metakataloge können keine sinnvollen Facetten anbieten, hier muss ein Relevanz-Ranking genügen. Dasselbe gilt für die Discovery Tools, in denen Quellen mit verschiedenen Erschliessungssystemen unter einer Oberfläche suchbar gemacht werden. In Kombination mit den Daten der Formalerschliessung sollen hingegen auch bei den Discovery Tools Filter so gestaltet sein, dass in spezifischen Beständen, die intellektuell sachlich erschlossen sind, ein Index der Schlagwörter als Themenfacetten angezeigt und genutzt werden kann. Die RDA wird dafür den Rahmen geben müssen."
  5. Eversberg, B.: Navigare necesse est : oder: Wie knüpft man die richtigen Beziehungen? (2006) 0.00 
    0.0040912796 = product of:
  0.020456398 = sum of:
    0.020456398 = weight(_text_:und in 1948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020456398 = score(doc=1948,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 1948, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1948)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Zu den heute geforderten Funktionen von Katalogsystemen gehört das Navigieren. Auch wer dieses Wort nicht kennt, navigiert täglich, und zwar bei jedem Klick auf einen Hyperlink. Es tut somit not, dem Nutzer Hyperlinks zu präsentieren - damit er zu "Ressourcen" surfen kann, die mit dem vorher gefundenen Dokument irgendwie zusammenhängen. Hyperlinks machen sich nicht von selbst, es muß etwas dahinterstecken, am besten ein Konzept, das die Beziehungen zwischen den Dokumenten in praktikabler, plausibler Weise abbildet. Wer keine oder die falschen Beziehungen hat, den bestraft das Leben - in Katalogen ist das nicht anders.
  6. Cossham, A.F.: Models of the bibliographic universe (2017) 0.00 
    0.003889871 = product of:
  0.019449355 = sum of:
    0.019449355 = weight(_text_:information in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019449355 = score(doc=3817,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.
    Content
    A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Monash University in 2017 Faculty of Information Technology. Vgl.: https://figshare.com/articles/Models_of_the_bibliographic_universe/5216347.
    Imprint
    Melbourne : Monash University; Faculty of Information Technology
  7. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.00 
    0.0023576177 = product of:
  0.011788089 = sum of:
    0.011788089 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011788089 = score(doc=1271,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.14252704 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
    The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.
  8. Byrd, J.; Charbonneau, G.; Charbonneau, M.; Courtney, A.; Johnson, E.; Leonard, K.; Morrison, A.; Mudge, S.; O'Bryan, A.; Opasik, S.; Riley, J.; Turchyn, S.: ¬A white paper on the future of cataloging at Indiana University (2006) 0.00 
    0.0022686187 = product of:
  0.011343094 = sum of:
    0.011343094 = weight(_text_:information in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011343094 = score(doc=3225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    This is a report by a group "charged to identify current trends that will have a direct impact on cataloging operations and to define possible new roles for the online catalog and cataloging staff at Indiana University." Their one general conclusion after nine months of work is that "The need for cataloging expertise within the I.U. Libraries will not be diminished in the coming years. Rather, catalogers of the future will work in the evolving environment of publishing, scholarly communication, and information technology in new expanded roles. Catalogers will need to be key players in addressing the many challenges facing the libraries and the overall management and organization of information at Indiana University." The report also identifies five strategic directions. The report is an interesting read, and taken with the explosion of related reports (e.g., Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress cited in this issue, the UC Bibliographic Services TF Report), adds yet another perspective to the kinds of changes we must foster to create better library services in a vastly changed environment.
  9. Coyle, K.; Hillmann, D.: Resource Description and Access (RDA) : cataloging rules for the 20th century (2007) 0.00 
    0.0022686187 = product of:
  0.011343094 = sum of:
    0.011343094 = weight(_text_:information in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011343094 = score(doc=2525,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  10. Babeu, A.: Building a "FRBR-inspired" catalog : the Perseus digital library experience (2008) 0.00 
    0.001814895 = product of:
  0.009074475 = sum of:
    0.009074475 = weight(_text_:information in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009074475 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.
  11. Lee, W.-C.: Conflicts of semantic warrants in cataloging practices (2017) 0.00 
    0.0016041556 = product of:
  0.008020778 = sum of:
    0.008020778 = weight(_text_:information in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008020778 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    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.
  12. Danskin, A.: "Tomorrow never knows" : the end of cataloguing? (2006) 0.00 
    0.0012833247 = product of:
  0.006416623 = sum of:
    0.006416623 = weight(_text_:information in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006416623 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges confronting cataloguing as we have known it and to consider how these challenges might be confronted and whether they may be surmounted. The main focus of this paper is on cataloguing rather than the catalogue, although it is obviously difficult to separate one from the other. First of all, what does "cataloguing" mean? For the purposes of this paper I have adopted a broad definition incorporating the following activities: - description of the resource sufficient for purposes of identification and for differentiation from other similar resources - identification and control of access points - identification and control of relationships with other resources - subject analysis of the resource - assignment of subject indexing terms - assignment of classification numbers The challenges facing cataloguing are all too well known. In no particular order, the major challenges are: - Increasing inputs - New kinds of information resource - Competition from other mediation services. - Perception that cataloguing is high cost and offers poor value for money. - Fiscal constraints - Declining workforce This is a daunting list. We have a choice, we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, "Turn off our minds, relax and float down stream", until we retire, take voluntary redundancy, or retrain as marketing consultants; or, we can choose to confront these challenges and consider what they really mean for cataloguing.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types