Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Lee, W.-C.: Conflicts of semantic warrants in cataloging practices (2017) 0.01 
    0.009676432 = product of:
  0.067735024 = sum of:
    0.067735024 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067735024 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037368443 = queryNorm
        0.3164402 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, 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.
  2. Wiesenmüller, H.: Erste Erfahrungen mit RDA an wissenschaftlichen Universalbibliotheken in Deutschland : Ergebnisse aus Fokusgruppengesprächen mit Katalogisierenden (2017) 0.00 
    0.0048387814 = product of:
  0.03387147 = sum of:
    0.03387147 = product of:
      0.06774294 = sum of:
        0.06774294 = weight(_text_:anwendung in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06774294 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1809185 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.37443897 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.8414783 = idf(docFreq=948, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Einige Monate nach dem Umstieg auf das neue Regelwerk "Resource Description and Access" (RDA) wurden an 18 großen deutschen wissenschaftlichen Universalbibliotheken Fokusgruppengespräche mit Katalogisierererinnen und Katalogisierern durchgeführt. Die Katalogisierenden wurden u.a. befragt, wie sicher sie sich bei der Anwendung von RDA fühlen, was sie am neuen Regelwerk gut oder schlecht finden, wie sie den Aufwand im Vergleich zum früheren Regelwerk RAK einschätzen, welche Informations- und Hilfsmittel sie verwenden und wie sie zu den regelmäßigen Änderungen im Standard stehen. Der vorliegende Aufsatz dokumentiert die Ergebnisse der Gespräche.
  3. Delsey, T.: ¬The Making of RDA (2016) 0.00 
    0.0021698177 = product of:
  0.015188723 = sum of:
    0.015188723 = product of:
      0.030377446 = sum of:
        0.030377446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030377446 = score(doc=2946,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2946, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2946)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    17. 5.2016 19:22:40

Authors

Languages