Search (50 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. McGrath, K.; Kules, B.; Fitzpatrick, C.: FRBR and facets provide flexible, work-centric access to items in library collections (2011) 0.02 
    0.015902052 = product of:
  0.071559235 = sum of:
    0.05872617 = weight(_text_:applications in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05872617 = score(doc=2430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34048924 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
    0.0128330635 = weight(_text_:of in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0128330635 = score(doc=2430,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This paper explores a technique to improve searcher access to library collections by providing a faceted search interface built on a data model based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). The prototype provides a Workcentric view of a moving image collection that is integrated with bibliographic and holdings data. Two sets of facets address important user needs: "what do you want?" and "how/where do you want it?" enabling patrons to narrow, broaden and pivot across facet values instead of limiting them to the tree-structured hierarchy common with existing FRBR applications. The data model illustrates how FRBR is being adapted and applied beyond the traditional library catalog.
  2. Fuller, E.E.: Variation in personal names in works represented in the catalog (1989) 0.01 
    0.010040707 = product of:
  0.04518318 = sum of:
    0.016567415 = weight(_text_:of in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016567415 = score(doc=439,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=439,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
  3. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.01 
    0.009899746 = product of:
  0.044548854 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
    0.031847417 = product of:
      0.063694835 = sum of:
        0.063694835 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063694835 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  4. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.01 
    0.0091910185 = product of:
  0.04135958 = sum of:
    0.025168357 = weight(_text_:applications in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025168357 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.14592396 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.016191222 = weight(_text_:of in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016191222 = score(doc=1271,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.26429096 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
    Editor
    Library of Congress / Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control
  5. Goossens, P.; Mazur-Rzesos, E.: Hierarchical relationships in bibliographic descriptions : problem analysis (1982) 0.01 
    0.009083001 = product of:
  0.08174701 = sum of:
    0.08174701 = weight(_text_:software in 4619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08174701 = score(doc=4619,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15541996 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.525975 = fieldWeight in 4619, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9671519 = idf(docFreq=2274, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4619)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Source
    Hierarchical relationships in bibliographic records, INTERMARC software subgroup seminar 4, Essen, 25.3.-27.3.1981
  6. Lee, W.-C.: Conflicts of semantic warrants in cataloging practices (2017) 0.01 
    0.0084427325 = product of:
  0.037992295 = sum of:
    0.017552461 = weight(_text_:of in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017552461 = score(doc=3871,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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. Visintin, G.: Passaggi (1998) 0.01 
    0.007379255 = product of:
  0.033206645 = sum of:
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=3053,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
    0.021231614 = product of:
      0.042463228 = sum of:
        0.042463228 = weight(_text_:22 in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042463228 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Examines in detail the author cataloguing practices adopted by the Italian National Library Service, as set out in its 1995 Cataloguing Guide (Guida SBN), and discusses how far these practices accord with the standard 1979 RICA author cataloguing rules. Since the author headings prescribed by RICA include personal names, corporate names and titles, this survey looks at all such SBN catalogue entries having an access point function. Presents many examples of standard and variant forms of heading, and reviews control procedures
    Date
    22. 2.1999 20:40:57
  8. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.01 
    0.006456848 = product of:
  0.029055815 = sum of:
    0.010478153 = weight(_text_:of in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010478153 = score(doc=114,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. Managing cataloging and the organization of information : philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century (2000) 0.00 
    0.0040807063 = product of:
  0.018363178 = sum of:
    0.009074346 = weight(_text_:of in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009074346 = score(doc=238,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.14812148 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
    0.009288831 = product of:
      0.018577661 = sum of:
        0.018577661 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018577661 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Footnote
    Rez. in ZfBB 51(2004) H.1, S.54-55 (G. Pflug): "Unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der Informationstechnologie auf den Bibliotheksbereich nimmt die Katalogisierung eine Schlüsselstellung ein. Das vorliegende Werk gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Der erste Abschnitt ist mit »National Libraries« überschrieben, befasst sich jedoch nur mit der Library of Congress und der National Library of Canada. Ihm folgen Artikel über »Libraries around the world«. Dabei fälltjedoch auf, dass diese Studien zwar Bibliotheken in Großbritannien, Australien, Mittel- und Südamerika und selbst Afrika (Botswana) behandeln, nicht jedoch aus Kontinentaleuropa, trotz entsprechender Aktivitäten etwa in den Niederlanden, in Frankreich oder den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Nur DOBIS/LIBIS wird erwähnt, aber nur, weil es für kurze Zeit die kanadische Entwicklung beeinflusst hat. Im zweiten Teil kommen Katalogisierungsfachleute aus vier Spezial- und neun akademischen Bibliotheken - ausschließlich aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien - zu Wort. So enthält das Werk in 22 Beispielen Berichte über individuelle und regionale Lösungen. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, zu welchen Änderungen in der Katalogisierungs- und Sacherschließungspraxis die neuen elektronischen Techniken geführt haben. So streben z.B. die englischen Hochschulbibliotheken ein koordiniertes System an. Mit dem Übergang der British Library zu MARC 21 wird das Katalogsystem in Großbritannien nachhaltig beeinflusst - um nur zwei nahe liegende Beispiele zu nennen. Insgesamt werden drei Aspekte behandelt, die Automatisierungstechnik; die dabei einzusetzende Kooperation und das Outsourcing - nicht nur durch Übernahme von Daten anderer Bibliotheken oder durch Verbundsysteme, vor allem der Library of Congress, sondern auch durch Buchhandelsfirmen wie Blackwell North America Authority Control Service. In der Frage der Sacherschließung befassen sich die Beiträge mit den im amerikanischen Bereich üblichen Klassifikationssystemen, vor allem der Colon Classification, Dewey in seinen beiden Formen oder der Library of Congress Classification. Für die deutsche Diskussion sind diese Aspekte vor allem wegen des Übergangs der Deutschen Bibliothek in ihrer Nationalbibliografie zur DDC von großem Interesse (vgl. Magda Heiner-Freiling: Die DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. In Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 15. 2003, Nr. 3, S. 8-13). Doch stellen auch die unterschiedlichen Überlegungen zur alphabetischen Katalogisierung, verbunden mit den da zugehörigen Datenbanken, einen interessanten Beitrag zur augenblicklichen Diskussion in Deutschland dar, da auch hier seit einigen Jahren die Katalogisierung nach RAK und ihre Ablösung eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst hat, wie unter anderem der zusammenfassende Beitrag von Elisabeth Niggemann in: Dialog mit Bibliotheken (15. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 4-8) zeigt. Auch die angloamerikanischen und die mit ihnen zum Beispiel in Mexiko, Südamerika oder Australien verbundenen Bibliotheken - das zeigt das Buch deutlich - diskutieren die Frage der alphabetischen Katalogisierung kontrovers. So werden z.B. neben den dominanten AACR-Regeln mit ihrer Weiterentwicklung mehr als zehn andere Katalogisierungssysteme und rund 20 Online-Datenbanken behandelt. Damit liefert das Buch für die Diskussion in Deutschland und die anstehenden Entscheidungen in seiner Grundtendenz wie in den unterschiedlichen-auch widersprüchlichen-Aspekten dereinzelnen Beiträge wertvolle Anregungen."
  10. Treichler, W.: Katalogisierungsregeln, Kataloge und Benützer in schweizerischen Bibliotheken (1986) 0.00 
    0.003538602 = product of:
  0.031847417 = sum of:
    0.031847417 = product of:
      0.063694835 = sum of:
        0.063694835 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063694835 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Date
    8.10.2000 14:22:27
  11. Smiraglia, R.P.: Rethinking what we catalog : documents as cultural artifacts (2008) 0.00 
    0.0028200909 = product of:
  0.025380818 = sum of:
    0.025380818 = weight(_text_:of in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025380818 = score(doc=789,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.41429368 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"
  12. Frias, J.A.: ¬La estructura conceptual del registro bibliografico : una revision (1996) 0.00 
    0.002730383 = product of:
  0.024573447 = sum of:
    0.024573447 = weight(_text_:of in 4618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024573447 = score(doc=4618,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 4618, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4618)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    It is assumed that the conceptual structure of bibliographic records is based on the knowledge of user needs. In applying the entity-relationship model to the library catalogue the authority file and bibliographic records can be viewed as attributes, and the links between records and elements as relationships. Outlines the bibliographic relationships of the UNIMARC format, the analysis of hierarchical relationships carried out by Goosens and Mazur-Rzesos, and the typology of bibliographic documents established by McCallum. Presents 7 types of relationships developed by Tillet and gives results of an empirical study carried out to establish the extent and features of bibliographic relationships in the computerized catalogue of the Library of Congress
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: The conceptual structure of the bibliographic record
  13. Cossham, A.F.: Models of the bibliographic universe (2017) 0.00 
    0.0026033178 = product of:
  0.023429861 = sum of:
    0.023429861 = weight(_text_:of in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023429861 = score(doc=3817,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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
  14. Tillett, B.B.: ¬A taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (1991) 0.00 
    0.002489248 = product of:
  0.022403233 = sum of:
    0.022403233 = weight(_text_:of in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022403233 = score(doc=6686,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    A bibliographic relationship is an association between two or more bibliographic items or works. In an effort to provide the theoretical base for a conceptual model of the library catalog, past and future, the bibliographic relationship is examined here in detail. In this first of a series of reports, a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships is derived from an analysis of cataloging rules and types of bibliographic items.
  15. Lubetzky, S.: Principles of cataloging (2001) 0.00 
    0.002424508 = product of:
  0.021820573 = sum of:
    0.021820573 = weight(_text_:of in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021820573 = score(doc=2627,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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.
    Imprint
    Los Angeles : California Univ., Inst. of Library Research
  16. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2005) 0.00 
    0.0023403284 = product of:
  0.021062955 = sum of:
    0.021062955 = weight(_text_:of in 1086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021062955 = score(doc=1086,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 1086, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1086)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    This thought piece on the future of cataloging is long on musings and short on predictions. But that isn't to denigrate it, only to clarify it's role given the possible connotations of the title. Rather than coming up with solutions or predictions, Marcum ponders the proper role of cataloging in a Google age. Marcum cites the Google project to digitize much or all of the contents of a selected set of major research libraries as evidence that the world of cataloging is changing dramatically, and she briefly identifies ways in which the Library of Congress is responding to this new environment. But, Marcum cautions, "the future of cataloging is not something that the Library of Congress, or even the small library group with which we will meet, can or expects to resolve alone." She then poses some specific questions that should be considered, including how we can massively change our current MARC/AACR2 system without creating chaos
  17. Bianchini, C.; Guerrini, M.: ¬A turning point for catalogs : Ranganathan's possible point of view (2015) 0.00 
    0.0022314154 = product of:
  0.020082738 = sum of:
    0.020082738 = weight(_text_:of in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020082738 = score(doc=2006,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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.
  18. Miksa, S.D.: Educators: what are the cataloging issues students get excited about? : professional and intellectual appeals of cataloging and students' misconceptions of cataloging (2008) 0.00 
    0.0021780923 = product of:
  0.01960283 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=786,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"
  19. Clarke, R.I.: Breaking records : the history of bibliographic records and their influence in conceptualizing bibliographic data (2015) 0.00 
    0.0021780923 = product of:
  0.01960283 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=1877,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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.
  20. Wakeling, S.; Clough, P.; Connaway, L.S.; Sen, B.; Tomás, D.: Users and uses of a global union catalog : a mixed-methods study of WorldCat.org (2017) 0.00 
    0.0021201707 = product of:
  0.019081537 = sum of:
    0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 3794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019081537 = score(doc=3794,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 3794, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3794)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 44
  • d 2
  • a 1
  • i 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 38
  • el 12
  • m 4
  • r 3
  • s 2
  • b 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects