Search (102 results, page 1 of 6)

0.047103487 = product of:
  0.11775871 = sum of:
    0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098406665 = score(doc=387,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.426834 = fieldWeight in 387, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=387)
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 387) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=387,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 387, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=387)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper presents one approach to the teaching of both the basic and advanced courses in cataloging. In addressing the basic course, short-term and long-term objectives of the course are identified for four categories of students-Cataloging Specialists, General/Special Librarians, Non-Cataloging Specialists and Non-Library Information Specialists. The philosophy underlying this mode of instruction places emphasis upon group interaction and making the course enjoyable for the student, thus increasing interest while imparting more information and better preparing the four groups of students for work in organizing information. Stress is placed upon student participation and the use of realistic situations to instruct and evaluate student performance.

0.017131606 = product of:
  0.042829014 = sum of:
    0.02018963 = weight(_text_:of in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018963 = score(doc=2502,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 2502, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2502)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 2502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=2502,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2502, 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=2502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Examines a simpler cataloguing format offered by PCs, without disturbing compatibility, using A-Z cataloguing rules for data input, category codes for tagging and computer-supported data input through windows. Gives numerous examples of catalogue entries, basing techniques on certain category schemes set out by Klaus Haller and Hans Popst. Examines catalogue entries in respect of categories of data bases for authors and corporate names, titles, single volume works, serial issues of collected works, and limited editions of works in several volumes.

Source

Bibliotheksdienst. 22(1988) H.9, S.841-856

0.017131606 = product of:
  0.042829014 = sum of:
    0.02018963 = weight(_text_:of in 358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018963 = score(doc=358,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 358, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=358)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 358, 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=358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a year-long survey conducted at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) to determine what level of cataloging copy (Library of Congress, member input, or none) is present on OCLC at the time an item is received in Technical Services and after a six-month waiting period. These results were used to divert selected monographs from the normal workflow in order to expedite their cataloging and to release needed shelf space for other items.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 7(1987) no.3, S.13-22

0.016284827 = product of:
  0.040712066 = sum of:
    0.020902606 = weight(_text_:of in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020902606 = score(doc=366,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 366, 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=366)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=366,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

LIAS, the Pennsylvania State University's (Penn State) integrated interactive online system, provides for messaging by the user to inform library staff of errors found in bibliographic records. The message is sent by use of the OOPS command, and results in a printout which is used by processing staff for online catalog maintenance. This article describes LIAS, the use of the OOPS command, the processing of the resulting OOPS reports, an assessment of the effect of its use, and some speculation on the expansion of the LIAS message system for use in catalog maintenance.

Date

7. 1.2007 13:22:30

0.016279016 = product of:
  0.040697537 = sum of:
    0.018058153 = weight(_text_:of in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018058153 = score(doc=364,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 364, 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=364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Traditional cataloging support services such as typing and filing are gradually being eliminated in favor of more sophisticated skills. Library staff members who are specialized in imminently obsolete skills must be re-educated to become productive participants in the "Golden Age" of technology. The Catalog Management section at the Iowa State University Library is attempting to make this process painless and exciting for all of its employees.

Date

7. 1.2007 13:22:11

0.015311283 = product of:
  0.038278207 = sum of:
    0.01563882 = weight(_text_:of in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01563882 = score(doc=310,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 310, 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=310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition, aim at universal applicability. Some problems brought forth through the translation process and the laws in the workability of rules in a nonEnglish working language are examined. This leads to acknowledge the failure of AACR2 to acquire an international adaptability. Enquiry into the needs of potential users is advised.

Date

6. 1.2007 19:12:22

0.015149051 = product of:
  0.037872627 = sum of:
    0.019956108 = product of:
      0.09978054 = sum of:
        0.09978054 = weight(_text_:problem in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09978054 = score(doc=266,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.5627445 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01791652 = score(doc=266,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Duplicate records is a familiar problem in bibliographic databases. The problem is obvious when a union catalogue is established by automatically merging two or more separate and independent source of catalogue information. However, even in systems with on-line cataloguing and access to previous records, duplication is a problem. Author / title search search prior to cataloguing does not cut duplication to zero. A great deal of effort has been put into developing methods of duplicate detection. A major problem in this work has been efficiency. Particularly in the on-line setting is this of importance. Most studies have dealt with book and article material. The Research Libraries Group Inc. has described matching algorithms also for films, maps, recordings, scores and serials. Various methods of detecting duplicates will be discussed.

Source

Future of online catalogs. Essen Symposium, 30.9.-3.10.1985. Ed. by A.H. Helal, J.W. Weiss

0.013594754 = product of:
  0.033986885 = sum of:
    0.011641062 = product of:
      0.05820531 = sum of:
        0.05820531 = weight(_text_:problem in 1519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05820531 = score(doc=1519,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 1519, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1519)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.022345824 = weight(_text_:of in 1519) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022345824 = score(doc=1519,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1519, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1519)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Although it was decided more than a year ago to adopt BIBOS Catloguing System for use in Austrian academic libraries, the Working Group on Cataloguing has been voicing doubts as its use begins. Lists these doubts. Deals in detail wih the problem of the hierarchical structure of BIBOS into which records of multi-volume works have to be fitted. In Sept 88 the computer company (EDV GmbH) itself came forward with a technical improvement which would allow the build up of records from the smaller fields, instead of imposing the shape of records from the ultimate data set, which had on occasion even led to contravention of the nominative cataloguing rules, RAK-WB. Cataloguing in the interim period will be complex. The working group has still made no final decision.

0.012556955 = product of:
  0.031392388 = sum of:
    0.009978054 = product of:
      0.04989027 = sum of:
        0.04989027 = weight(_text_:problem in 361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04989027 = score(doc=361,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 361, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=361)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.021414334 = weight(_text_:of in 361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021414334 = score(doc=361,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 361, 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=361)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The problem addressed in this paper is that of simplifying access point determination. A critique is made of the simple, mechanical rule whereby every name appearing in certain designatable locations within a publication qualifies as an access point. Then a more acceptable version of the every-name-an-access-point rule is tested empirically against a sample of 400 English language monographs. Conclusions reached concern (1) the responsibility profiles of these monographs, i.e., how many authors, editors, illustrators and emanators are typically associated with them and in what combinations, and (2) the relative productivity of different locations within them, e.g., title pages and tables of contents, as sources of access points. The study was conceived to be exploratory in nature and its findings suggest further research that could be done to provide empirical validation for rules for access point determination.

0.012556955 = product of:
  0.031392388 = sum of:
    0.009978054 = product of:
      0.04989027 = sum of:
        0.04989027 = weight(_text_:problem in 441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04989027 = score(doc=441,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 441, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=441)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.021414334 = weight(_text_:of in 441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021414334 = score(doc=441,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 441, 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=441)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The uniform title is viewed historically as an artificial device to collocate works. In music cataloging, problems of multiple manifestations with variant title pages lead to the development of uniform titles that would both collocate and distinguish, and ultimately serve as identifiers for musical works. A principal problem in the authority control of works is recognition of multiple manifestations and the concomitant syndetic depth. Research suggests a low incidence of multiple manifestations among textual works, but hints that a greater incidence might be found among musical works. An empirical study is conducted using a sample of musical works and locating for each all physical manifestations in OCLC and the NUC. Virtually the entire sample of musical works yielded multiple manifestations. A majority of the manifestations had titles proper different from that of the first edition of the work. It is concluded that an authority-controlled collocating device is necessary for musical works, that more references are required, and that links among authority records for works could provide increased syndetic depth.

0.012397245 = product of:
  0.030993111 = sum of:
    0.011641062 = product of:
      0.05820531 = sum of:
        0.05820531 = weight(_text_:problem in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05820531 = score(doc=327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.01935205 = weight(_text_:of in 327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01935205 = score(doc=327,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 327, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=327)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In the last ten years, Cataloging in Publication (CIP) records have gained increasing acceptance and use in libraries, especially for cataloging purposes. Nevertheless, there is a general perception that the accuracy of CIP records can be further improved. Because improvement is only possible with more concrete information identifying specific problem areas, this study is designed to provide catalogers and cataloging managers more empirical data on the frequency and types of discrepancy between MARC CIP records and subsequent MARC LC records. This study differs from an earlier study which involved CIP records that appeared on the verso of the title page of publications. In addition, this study will make some observations regarding more effective use of the CIP records, primarily for cataloging purposes.

0.011722796 = product of:
  0.02930699 = sum of:
    0.011641062 = product of:
      0.05820531 = sum of:
        0.05820531 = weight(_text_:problem in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05820531 = score(doc=439,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 439, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=439)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.017665926 = weight(_text_:of in 439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665926 = score(doc=439,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.011157829 = product of:
  0.027894573 = sum of:
    0.009978054 = product of:
      0.04989027 = sum of:
        0.04989027 = weight(_text_:problem in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04989027 = score(doc=348,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 348, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=348)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01791652 = score(doc=348,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 348, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=348)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Once collections of microcomputer software are established in a library, they grow like wildfire, requiring bibliographic control. Control should have been furnished by AACR2, however, Chapter 9, designed to deal with macroor minicomputer software, was difficult to apply to microcomputer software. Responding to demand from the field, a Task Force of ALA's Committee Cataloging: Description and Access devised Guidelines for Using AACR2 Chapter 9 for Cataloging Microcomputer Software, which was approved at the 1984 Midwinter Conference and is now available for purchase from RTSD. The Guidelines deal with three problems raised by application of Chapter 9 to microcomputer software: teminology; description of the physical manifestation of an item; and notes describing related hardware. A fourth problem concerns which materials are covered by the Guidelines. Each of these is explored and evaluated.

0.006791815 = product of:
  0.033959076 = sum of:
    0.033959076 = product of:
      0.06791815 = sum of:
        0.06791815 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791815 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.005473587 = product of:
  0.027367935 = sum of:
    0.027367935 = weight(_text_:of in 437) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027367935 = score(doc=437,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 437, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=437)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bibliographic records for microcomputer software in the OCLC Online Union Catalog are evaluated primarily for the purpose of focusing catalogers' attention on selected record areas in need of more consistent treatment. The degree of cataloging inconsistency evident in these records is examined with respect to the application of rules and prescriptions embodied in AACR2 Chapter 9, the ALA Guidelines for cataloging microcomputer software, and the application of Library of Congress subject cataloging practice to these materials. A secondary purpose of this quantitative/qualitative study is to provide a general assessment of the overall composition of microcomputer software cataloging during this transition period between the use of available but disparate sources of descriptive cataloging guidance and their eventual consolidation in the future edition of AACR2.

0.0052405605 = product of:
  0.026202802 = sum of:
    0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026202802 = score(doc=343,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 343, 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=343)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.

0.0052405605 = product of:
  0.026202802 = sum of:
    0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026202802 = score(doc=370,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 370, 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=370)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The bibliographic phase of the Pennsylvania Newspaper Project (PaNP) is described in terms of organization and procedures. During the first year of the PaNP, cataloging at five sites distributed geographically throughout Pennsylvania was implemented. Overall project direction is provided at the State Library of Pennsylvania and CONSER authentication for Pennsylvania newspaper cataloging is performed at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt). The article emphasizes activities at the University of Pittsburgh and documents procedures and recommendations by the staff at Pitt. Unique complexities of cataloging newspapers and recording holdings information are examined. An innovative system of profiling has been developed to allow for the inclusion, into OCLC, of the holdings of small repositories and private individuals.

0.005107617 = product of:
  0.025538085 = sum of:
    0.025538085 = weight(_text_:of in 8649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025538085 = score(doc=8649,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 8649, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8649)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Paper presented at the International Association of Sound Archives (IASA) Conference, Vienna, 1988, at the Cataloguing Committee's session. In making entries of edited audiovisual material there a two sets of rules in existence in West Germany both of which are described. Identifies 8 types of material for each of which there are prescribed cataloguing rules; the visual re-presentation for projection; film; multi-media; slide show with synchronised sound and commentary; sound recordings; group of games; and audiovisual material in microform.

0.005107617 = product of:
  0.025538085 = sum of:
    0.025538085 = weight(_text_:of in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025538085 = score(doc=311,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The method of integrating rules for nonbook materials with those for print materials in AACR2 is examined to see how well nonbook materials are handled and whether the treatment of print materials is affected. Both choice of entry rules and rules for description are examined to see whether their provisions are in accordance with the needs of users of these materials, and/or the patterns of publication and identification of these materials. Areas needing further research are identified.

0.005107617 = product of:
  0.025538085 = sum of:
    0.025538085 = weight(_text_:of in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025538085 = score(doc=351,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In cases where more than three authors share responsibility for the creation of a work, the so-called Rule of Three dictates that the catalog should provide added entry under only the first author named. This practlce discriminates unfairly against the authors whose names are not included and hampers those patrons who only recall the name of one or more of those authors overlooked by the catalog. Taking a historical perspective, this paper traces the origins of this Rule and exposes it as a form of censorship.