Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0035308218 = product of:
  0.024715751 = sum of:
    0.006226926 = weight(_text_:information in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006226926 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 131, 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=131)
    0.018488824 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018488824 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.092201896 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

0.0011005254 = product of:
  0.015407355 = sum of:
    0.015407355 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 908) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015407355 = score(doc=908,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.092201896 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 908, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=908)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The 2nd objective of the catalogue, adopted internationally in the Paris Principles, requires that cataloguing records for particular authors and particular works be easily identified (IFLA 1991). Analysis of the requirements of the 2nd objective of the catalogue shows that it has 2 components: a retrieval component; and a display component; and that it may be interpreted broadly to include related works and works about a work or author. Investigates 2 schemes for their contributions to the creation of online catalogue displays that meet 2nd objective requirements. Analyzes the catalogue filing rule scheme to show that author and work displays in card catalogues have been composed of many groups or classes of materials that may also be used to create organized displays in online catalogues. The groups used in the filing rule scheme are based on relationships among items. Proposes a scheme based on Tillet's bibliographic relationship taxonomy to discover additional types of relationships that may be used to group record in online catalogue displays leading to a new scheme for the creation of organized display in online catalogues. Incorporates elements from both the filing rule scheme and the bibliographic relationship taxonomy to create displays that meet the requirements of the 2nd objective more fully than either scheme does alone

7.866154E-4 = product of:
  0.011012616 = sum of:
    0.011012616 = product of:
      0.033037845 = sum of:
        0.033037845 = weight(_text_:22 in 7234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033037845 = score(doc=7234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10673865 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030480823 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7234, 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=7234)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Cataloguing Australia. 22(1996) nos.1/2, S.21-25

7.866154E-4 = product of:
  0.011012616 = sum of:
    0.011012616 = product of:
      0.033037845 = sum of:
        0.033037845 = weight(_text_:22 in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033037845 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10673865 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030480823 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 695, 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=695)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15

6.8828854E-4 = product of:
  0.009636039 = sum of:
    0.009636039 = product of:
      0.028908115 = sum of:
        0.028908115 = weight(_text_:22 in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028908115 = score(doc=5162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10673865 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.030480823 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5162, 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=5162)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.3-28

5.189105E-4 = product of:
  0.0072647473 = sum of:
    0.0072647473 = weight(_text_:information in 3018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072647473 = score(doc=3018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3018, 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=3018)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Surveys the status of catalguing practice in university libraries in 3 Asian developing countries, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Saudia Arabia. Examines the extent of the usage of international cataloguing tools such as cataloguing codes (AACR, ISBD), classification schemes (DDC, LCC) and subject heading lists (Sears, LCSH). Results indicate that there is an overall uniformity in the use of such tools, with a trend towards automation of cataloguing services with more access points for catalogue searching. Online catalogues are also replacing all traditional catalogue forms (card, printed, and microform). Findings show that, in using information technology in technical services, Malaysian university libraries are more advanced than those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

4.4478045E-4 = product of:
  0.006226926 = sum of:
    0.006226926 = weight(_text_:information in 7910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006226926 = score(doc=7910,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 7910, 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=7910)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Describes the technical aspects of a feasibility study to test a new concept in bibliographic control based on the manifestations of a work. Conventional catalogues are based on the main entry principle which follows from the concept that there should be 1 main entry for each work. The Bradford OPAC project, at Bradford University, UK, aimed to develop a new type of hierarchical bibliographic record structure to cope with the problem of applying the main entry principle to multiple cataloguing records which are manisfestations of the same work. The project involved the storage of MARC data sets of bibliographic records, taken from the Bradford University Library OPAC and the OCLC WorldCat database, in a relational database (MS Access) on a PC. This was then used for an experimental Windows based OPAC, to evaluate the overall success of the idea and any problem areas identified with a view to a more substantial study. The project also aimed to test whether intelligent and responsive software, using a graphic user interface and based on sets of manifestations, could provide a better route to information than a display based on a single work

4.4478045E-4 = product of:
  0.006226926 = sum of:
    0.006226926 = weight(_text_:information in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006226926 = score(doc=1149,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053508412 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.030480823 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1149, 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=1149)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.8, S.706-719