Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.019320987 = product of:
  0.038641974 = sum of:
    0.038641974 = product of:
      0.07728395 = sum of:
        0.07728395 = weight(_text_:data in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07728395 = score(doc=131,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.014965973 = product of:
  0.029931946 = sum of:
    0.029931946 = product of:
      0.05986389 = sum of:
        0.05986389 = weight(_text_:data in 1149) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05986389 = score(doc=1149,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 1149, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1149)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, we examine some of the proposals which have dealt with the problems in cataloging in 2 different technological contexts: printed-card catalogs and online catalogs. We first look at some of the measures which attempted to deal with the 'crisis in cataloging' at the Library of Congress in the 1940s. Then we address some of the current problems in cataloging in the era of OPACs. In particular, we discuss the extent to which minimal-level cataloging, as defines by AACR and implemented in the OCLC database, works for maps. Our discussion is organized around 2 main groups of access points: controlled vocabulary data elements, including name data elements, and free-text data elements. In closing, we discuss prospects that the next generation of online catalogs uisng the Z39.50 protocol and SGML format might offer to minimal-level cataloging for maps

0.014256276 = product of:
  0.028512552 = sum of:
    0.028512552 = product of:
      0.057025105 = sum of:
        0.057025105 = weight(_text_:data in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057025105 = score(doc=5128,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The article is a researcher's eye view of the value of the library catalog not only as a database to be searched for surrogates of objects of study, but as a corpus of text that can be analyzed in its own right, or incorporated within the researcher's own research database. Barriers are identified in the ways in which catalog data can be output and the technical skills researchers currently need to download, ingest, and manipulate data. Research tools and datasets created by, or in collaboration with, the library community are identified.

0.014129783 = product of:
  0.028259566 = sum of:
    0.028259566 = product of:
      0.056519132 = sum of:
        0.056519132 = weight(_text_:22 in 7234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056519132 = score(doc=7234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.014129783 = product of:
  0.028259566 = sum of:
    0.028259566 = product of:
      0.056519132 = sum of:
        0.056519132 = weight(_text_:22 in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056519132 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

6. 3.1997 16:22:15

0.0123635605 = product of:
  0.024727121 = sum of:
    0.024727121 = product of:
      0.049454242 = sum of:
        0.049454242 = weight(_text_:22 in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049454242 = score(doc=5162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.0123635605 = product of:
  0.024727121 = sum of:
    0.024727121 = product of:
      0.049454242 = sum of:
        0.049454242 = weight(_text_:22 in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049454242 = score(doc=366,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18260197 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 366, 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=366)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 1.2007 13:22:30

0.01152081 = product of:
  0.02304162 = sum of:
    0.02304162 = product of:
      0.04608324 = sum of:
        0.04608324 = weight(_text_:data in 10) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04608324 = score(doc=10,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 10, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=10)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A discussion document produced following a meeting the Users of Book Industry Standards (UBIS) Bibliographic Standards Working Group at the University of London as part of a project to consider the Survey on the use of UK-MARC by Russell Sweeney published in 1991 by the British Library National Bibliographic Service. Considers the suitability, or otherwise, of the UKMARC format for use in OPACs. Summarizes the issues involved, discussing: the UKMARC exchange format, tagging and coding structure (record complexity, analytical entries, non filing indicators), data content (statements of responsibility, main versus added entry) and records standards

0.009977316 = product of:
  0.019954631 = sum of:
    0.019954631 = product of:
      0.039909262 = sum of:
        0.039909262 = weight(_text_:data in 1339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039909262 = score(doc=1339,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.24204408 = fieldWeight in 1339, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Will there be a library catalogue in the future and, if so, what will it look like? In the last 25 years, the library catalogue has undergone an evolution, from card catalogues to OPACs, discovery systems and even linked data applications making library bibliographic data accessible on the web. At the same time, users expectations of what catalogues will be able to offer in the way of discovery have never been higher. This groundbreaking edited collection brings together some of the foremost international cataloguing practitioners and thought leaders, including Lorcan Dempsey, Emmanuelle Bermès, Marshall Breeding and Karen Calhoun, to provide an overview of the current state of the art of the library catalogue and look ahead to see what the library catalogue might become. Practical projects and cutting edge concepts are showcased in discussions of linked data and the Semantic Web, user expectations and needs, bibliographic control, the FRBRization of the catalogue, innovations in search and retrieval, next-generation discovery products and mobile catalogues.

0.008640608 = product of:
  0.017281216 = sum of:
    0.017281216 = product of:
      0.03456243 = sum of:
        0.03456243 = weight(_text_:data in 7910) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456243 = score(doc=7910,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16488427 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052144732 = queryNorm
            0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 7910, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7910)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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