Search (32 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0012944371 = product of:
  0.009061059 = sum of:
    0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009061059 = score(doc=3225,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0012944371 = product of:
  0.009061059 = sum of:
    0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009061059 = score(doc=2525,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.

0.0012944371 = product of:
  0.009061059 = sum of:
    0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009061059 = score(doc=3794,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.0012814275 = product of:
  0.0089699915 = sum of:
    0.0089699915 = weight(_text_:information in 5360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089699915 = score(doc=5360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5360, 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=5360)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0012814275 = product of:
  0.0089699915 = sum of:
    0.0089699915 = weight(_text_:information in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089699915 = score(doc=1877,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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(1/7)

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.

0.0012814275 = product of:
  0.0089699915 = sum of:
    0.0089699915 = weight(_text_:information in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089699915 = score(doc=1879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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(1/7)

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.

0.0010983663 = product of:
  0.007688564 = sum of:
    0.007688564 = weight(_text_:information in 1883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007688564 = score(doc=1883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0010355497 = product of:
  0.0072488473 = sum of:
    0.0072488473 = weight(_text_:information in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072488473 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

9.153052E-4 = product of:
  0.006407136 = sum of:
    0.006407136 = weight(_text_:information in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006407136 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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(1/7)

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.

9.153052E-4 = product of:
  0.006407136 = sum of:
    0.006407136 = weight(_text_:information in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006407136 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

7.7666226E-4 = product of:
  0.0054366356 = sum of:
    0.0054366356 = weight(_text_:information in 2187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054366356 = score(doc=2187,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.08228803 = fieldWeight in 2187, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2187)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

1998 wurde die Digitalisierung der Zettelkataloge der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek in Wien abgeschlossen. Diese technologische Veränderung, welche die Mehrzahl der kulturellen Archive der Gegenwart vollziehen, ist ein Einschnitt in der Geschichte der Bibliothek und ihrer Benützer, eine Bruchstelle, die zugleich eine Fundstelle ist: Ab diesem Zeitpunkt kann der Buchbestand nur noch per Computer abgerufen werden; die fast gewichtslose Karteikarte, deren Lesen und Finden im Katalog noch an eine gewisse räumliche und taktile Erfahrung gebunden war, wird zur gewichtslosen, allseits abrufbaren Information. Der Nominalkatalog, also das alphabetische, nach Autor und Titel geordnete Verzeichnis der Bibliothek, umfaßt 84 Katalogkästen aus Holz, Stahl und Kunststoff, 3024 Laden und rund 2,6 Millionen Zettel, an denen Bibliothekare mehrerer Generationen gearbeitet haben. Der Zettelkatalog ist ein unscheinbares Möbel. Erst sein Fehlen oder seine Unvollständigkeit wird bemerkt. Als ein System geistiger Ordnung, wie Robert Musil den Katalog beschrieben hat, ist er historisch geworden. Damit aber wird der Katalog - durch die Digitalisierung von seinem Zweck befreit - erstmals als Skulptur im Raum sichtbar.

Content

"HABEN TUN MIR'S SICHER. ABER FINDEN?!" (1979) Auszug aus: Gina Kaus: "Und was für ein Leben ... mit Liebe und Literatur, Theater und Film." - BLICK VON INNEN DER HOFBIBLIOTHEKSAKT ZUM JOSEFINISCHEN KATALOG 1780 Adam Bartsch: Einige Bemerkungen die Verfertigung eines neuen Catalogs der gedruckten Bücher in der k. k. Bibliothek betreffend. DER HOFBIBLIOTHEKSAKT ZUM KATALOG 1848 Instruction für die mit der Leitung der außerordentlichen Arbeiten an der k. k. Hofbibliothek beauftragten Beamten und Hülfsarbeiter. VORSCHRIFT FÜR DIE VERFASSUNG DES ALPHABETISCHEN NOMINALZETTELKATALOGES DER DRUCKWERKE DER K. K. HOFBIBLIOTHEK 1901 Auszug aus: Vorschriften für die Katalogsarbeiten der k. k. Hofbibliothek. DIE ABSCHREIBARBEITEN DES ALTEN KATALOGS 1959-1966 Bilddokumentation INFORMATION ZUR BENÜTZUNG DES NOMINALKATALOGES 1997 Auszug aus: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek: Informationsblatt 2. 1: Nominalkataloge, Zettelkataloge.

7.322442E-4 = product of:
  0.0051257093 = sum of:
    0.0051257093 = weight(_text_:information in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051257093 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.