Search (61 results, page 2 of 4)

0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 3071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=3071,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3071, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3071)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=1879,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Type

a

0.0030970925 = product of:
  0.009291277 = sum of:
    0.009291277 = weight(_text_:a in 1882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009291277 = score(doc=1882,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 1882, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1882)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Catalogers have a unique challenge to overcome in demonstrating the value of their services: the better they are at performing their work--making collections accessible and enabling user discovery--the more invisible their efforts are to users and administrators. Catalogers must participate more actively in the broader discussion and demonstration of library value undertaken by their colleagues, but to do so requires a framework and a common vocabulary shared by non-catalogers.

Type

a

0.003065327 = product of:
  0.009195981 = sum of:
    0.009195981 = weight(_text_:a in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009195981 = score(doc=6739,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Type

a

0.003065327 = product of:
  0.009195981 = sum of:
    0.009195981 = weight(_text_:a in 5181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009195981 = score(doc=5181,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 5181, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5181)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Type

a

0.0029264777 = product of:
  0.008779433 = sum of:
    0.008779433 = weight(_text_:a in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008779433 = score(doc=789,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

Type

a

0.0027093915 = product of:
  0.008128175 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=2525,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Type

a

0.0027093915 = product of:
  0.008128175 = sum of:
    0.008128175 = weight(_text_:a in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008128175 = score(doc=3871,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Type

a

0.002682161 = product of:
  0.008046483 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=368,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 368, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=368)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Type

a

0.002682161 = product of:
  0.008046483 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=1878,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Type

a

0.002682161 = product of:
  0.008046483 = sum of:
    0.008046483 = weight(_text_:a in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008046483 = score(doc=3817,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 4619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=4619,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4619, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4619)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 5466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=5466,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5466, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5466)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002654651 = product of:
  0.007963953 = sum of:
    0.007963953 = weight(_text_:a in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007963953 = score(doc=2006,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Type

a

0.0025028288 = product of:
  0.0075084865 = sum of:
    0.0075084865 = weight(_text_:a in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075084865 = score(doc=2278,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0022989952 = product of:
  0.006896985 = sum of:
    0.006896985 = weight(_text_:a in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006896985 = score(doc=1883,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1883, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1883)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 1143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=1143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1143)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 3947) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=3947,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3947, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3947)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Type

a

0.002212209 = product of:
  0.0066366266 = sum of:
    0.0066366266 = weight(_text_:a in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066366266 = score(doc=2627,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.

0.0021899752 = product of:
  0.0065699257 = sum of:
    0.0065699257 = weight(_text_:a in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0065699257 = score(doc=439,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045180224 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recent research suggests that many authority records might be unnecessary in online systems with sophisticated programming. One problem in determining which names can be used without full authority records and the references they provide is that there has been little study of the names themselves, and patterns of variation are unknown. In a random sample of persons with entries in the University of Chicago library general catalog, more than 80% had names appearing in only one form in all works. The study also catagorizes the differences among the forms of those names that do appear in more than one way.

Type

a