Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0070486804 = product of:
  0.049340762 = sum of:
    0.042278 = weight(_text_:web in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042278 = score(doc=1877,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=1877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.006945434 = product of:
  0.048618037 = sum of:
    0.038629785 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038629785 = score(doc=174,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.31752092 = fieldWeight in 174, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=174)
    0.009988253 = weight(_text_:information in 174) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009988253 = score(doc=174,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 174, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=174)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

0.0062195025 = product of:
  0.029024344 = sum of:
    0.014794217 = weight(_text_:web in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014794217 = score(doc=4530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.15297705 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
    0.0052427407 = weight(_text_:information in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052427407 = score(doc=4530,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10078184 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
    0.008987385 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008987385 = score(doc=4530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08963835 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.10026272 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Library specialists in the cataloging and metadata professions have a greater purpose than simply managing information and connecting users to resources. There is a deeper and more profound impact that comes of their work: preservation of the human record. Conversations with Catalogers in the 21st Century contains four chapters addressing broad categories of issues that catalogers and metadata librarians are currently facing. Every important topic is covered, such as changing metadata practices, standards, data record structures, data platforms, and user expectations, providing both theoretical and practical information. Guidelines for dealing with present challenges are based on fundamentals from the past. Recommendations on training staff, building new information platforms of digital library resources, documenting new cataloging and metadata competencies, and establishing new workflows enable a real-world game plan for improvement.

Footnote

Rez. in Mitt VÖB 64(2011) H.1, S.151-153 (S. Breitling): "Wie sieht die Rolle der Katalogisierung im 21. Jahrhundert aus? In diversen Blogs und Mailinglisten wird darüber seit geraumer Zeit diskutiert. Der Bereich Katalogisierung befindet sich in einer Phase tiefgreifenden Wandels, ausgelöst durch eine Vielzahl von Faktoren, von denen veränderte Nutzererwartungen bei der Recherche und die wachsende Menge an neuen zu katalogisierenden Materialien (e-Books, Web-Ressourcen etc.) und Formaten nur zwei Aspekte darstellen. Das technische Umfeld wird nicht zuletzt durch fortgeschrittene Möglichkeiten im Bereich Retrieval und Präsentation geprägt. Wie schafft man es, dass Katalogisierung als Teil des gesamten Bibliothekswesens relevant und zeitgemäß bleibt? Welche der in Jahrzehnten Katalogisierungspraxis erarbeiteten Standards sind erhaltenswert, und welche sind im Hinblick auf den Fortschritt der IT und ein mögliches Semantic Web vielleicht gar nicht mehr nötig oder müssen an die Gegebenheiten angepasst werden? Mit diesen und anderen Fragen beschäftigt sich die Aufsatzsammlung "Conversations with catalogers in the 21st century". In der Community bekannte Personen wie Martha Yee, Christine Schwartz oder James Weinheimer kommen zu Wort, aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum Bernhard Eversberg, Entwickler des Bibliothekssystems Allegro.

0.005702162 = product of:
  0.039915133 = sum of:
    0.034870304 = weight(_text_:web in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034870304 = score(doc=324,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 324, 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=324)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.0044959965 = product of:
  0.031471975 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.

0.002787284 = product of:
  0.039021976 = sum of:
    0.039021976 = weight(_text_:bibliothek in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039021976 = score(doc=1831,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.121660605 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.32074454 = fieldWeight in 1831, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1055303 = idf(docFreq=1980, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1831)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

"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."

0.001008966 = product of:
  0.014125523 = sum of:
    0.014125523 = weight(_text_:information in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014125523 = score(doc=1878,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

8.737902E-4 = product of:
  0.012233062 = sum of:
    0.012233062 = weight(_text_:information in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012233062 = score(doc=3817,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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

6.6915166E-4 = product of:
  0.009368123 = sum of:
    0.009368123 = product of:
      0.028104367 = sum of:
        0.028104367 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028104367 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.103770934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029633347 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

29. 5.2015 11:08:22

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=3794,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3794, 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=3794)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This paper presents the first large-scale investigation of the users and uses of WorldCat.org, the world's largest bibliographic database and global union catalog. Using a mixed-methods approach involving focus group interviews with 120 participants, an online survey with 2,918 responses, and an analysis of transaction logs of approximately 15 million sessions from WorldCat.org, the study provides a new understanding of the context for global union catalog use. We find that WorldCat.org is accessed by a diverse population, with the three primary user groups being librarians, students, and academics. Use of the system is found to fall within three broad types of work-task (professional, academic, and leisure), and we also present an emergent taxonomy of search tasks that encompass known-item, unknown-item, and institutional information searches. Our results support the notion that union catalogs are primarily used for known-item searches, although the volume of traffic to WorldCat.org means that unknown-item searches nonetheless represent an estimated 250,000 sessions per month. Search engine referrals account for almost half of all traffic, but although WorldCat.org effectively connects users referred from institutional library catalogs to other libraries holding a sought item, users arriving from a search engine are less likely to connect to a library.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2166-2181

5.04483E-4 = product of:
  0.0070627616 = sum of:
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=1929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1929)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1883)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

3.6034497E-4 = product of:
  0.0050448296 = sum of:
    0.0050448296 = weight(_text_:information in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050448296 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = 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)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.