Search (314 results, page 16 of 16)

0.002427594 = product of:
  0.009710376 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 5435) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=5435,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 5435, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5435)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In this empirical study of a sample of catalog records I investigate the implications for information retrieval of the rules for choosing author access points in online catalogs. Aims: To obtain data that can be used to inform a revision of current cataloguing rules, and to propose more functional criteria aimed at improving the retrieval of information located on the basis of author names. Material and methods: A total of 838 records from the Biblioteca Nacional Española (Spanish National Library) were examined to analyze the use of authorities as access points. Authors were classified as creative or non-creative to facilitate the analysis. The variables investigated were author source location, potential author access points, actual entries used in the record, and loss of potential entry points. Results: A total of 3566 potential author access points were identified (mean of 4.25 per record). The title page yielded 57.3% of all potential access points, the table of contents yielded 33.5%, and other sources accounted for the remaining 9.1%. A total of 2125 potential authors were not used as access points in the records (overall loss of 59.5%). A total of 960 authors named on the title page were not used as entries (30.23% loss). In works with up to three authors per responsibility function, 24.8% of the authors were not used as entry points. In works with more than three authors, 75.2% of the potential access points were unused. Discussion and conclusions: A significant proportion of potential access points from the table of contents and the title page went unused. If the access points from these sources were used, author indexes would be more complete and accurate, and retrieval with online catalogs would be more efficient. I suggest that losses for creative authors were caused by neglect of the table of contents as a source of entries, strict application of the rule of three, and other specific factors. Losses for non-creative authors were caused by ambiguities and gaps in current cataloguing rules for choosing added author entries. The findings support the urgent need to revise cataloguing rules for author access points to make them more flexible, more practical, and more in line with actual responsibility functions and types of authorship.

0.002427594 = product of:
  0.009710376 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 55(2004) no.6, S.496-512

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5654)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article provides information on World Wide Web resources that would help catalogers understand the implications of the documents Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), a report of the International Federation of Library Associations Study Group, completed in September 1997. The Online Computer Library Center Office of Research has carried out a number of experiments to assess methods for the WorldCat database. The reports help explain the implications of FRBR concepts for a database such as WorldCat or for one's library catalog. The Research Libraries Group (RLG) has also been experimenting with FRBR concepts as part of the RedLightGreen project. This document, Mining the Catalog, includes a section Delivering the Goods, which includes a description of the group's work with FRBR concepts in a test subset of the RLG Bibliographic Database. The FRBR Display Tool link leads to a download page for the tool. This tool transforms the bibliographic data found in machine-readable cataloguing record files into meaningful by grouping the bibliographic data into the Work, Expression and Manifestation FRBR concepts. By experimenting with the FRBR Display Tool, librarians can see actual displays of library catalog data arranged in the manner described in the publication Displays for Multiple Versions From MARC 21 and FRBR.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5676)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The functions of publishers, printers, and booksellers in the years of hand printing and their connection with the concept of manifestation in FRBR are quite interesting, and the form given to their denotations becomes important when this element turns into a stable and fundamental access point to bibliographic information. The normal access point for the entity responsible for the manifestation must cease to be a mere indexing element and must become part of a thesaurus - that is, the terms it contains must be subject to authority control, as only this will allow the user not only to access an item, but also to relate it correctly with other items that share certain features with it, such as, for instance, the responsibility for the manifestation. Data about those in charge of the publication of early printed books is often inconsistent, unreliable, and sometimes even misleading, and authority files for such names will of necessity be very complicated. This paper traces the evolution of access points for printers, publishers, and booksellers from the annals of the eighteenth century to modern bibliographical databases and catalogs of early printed materials, and discusses the recent suggestion that an authority file should be designed by each national agency for their printers, publishers, and booksellers-just as happens for authors-to create a Virtual International Authority File.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5758)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This is a critical descriptive study of the situation of Cataloging as an academic discipline within Library and Information Science studies in Spain. Material and methods: The descriptive analysis of the sectional contents of the General and Specific Guidelines of the degreees of Diplomado (three-year degree) and Licenciado (five-year degree) in LIS and the Curricular Programs of the Spanish University schools or departments. Variables analyzed: the denomination and content descriptors of the course offerings and credit hours. The test-retest method was used, with a qualitative processing of data. Results: General data is given about the studies in LIS: their introduction, the universities that offer them, and the degrees awarded. Cataloging is considered an obligatory core subject matter, and is represented by several courses that present important differences insofar as their denominations, their credits and their character from one curricular program to the next. The average credit requisite for obligatory courses in cataloging in Spain is 14 (1 credit= 10 class hours), and 19.7 if we also consider the electives. At present, this discipline is undergoing a reform that will produce important changes as a result of the adaptation of university studies to the common framework of the European Union.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Studying works allows us to see empirically the problem of instantiation of works, both at large and in the catalog. The linkage of relationships among works is a critical goal for information retrieval because the ability to comprehend and select a specific instantiation of a work is crucial for the advancement of scholarship. Hence, the present study examines the instantiation of works among a set of entities known to be popular-best selling books of the 20th century. A sample of best selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 was constructed. For each work in the sample, all bibliographic records were identified in both OCLC and RLIN as well as instantiations on the World Wide Web. All but one work in the sample exists in multiple instantiations; many have large networks; and complex networks of instantiations have begun to appear in full text on the Web. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of continuing to gather statistical data about works. Solutions devised for the catalog will need to be modified for use in the chaotic environment of the World Wide Web and its successors.

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1884,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1884, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1884)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.8, S.1331-1346

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2436, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2436)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

RDA provides a set of guidelines and instructions on formulating data to support resource discovery. The data created using RDA to describe a resource are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find resources that correspond to the user's stated search criteria: identify-i.e., to confirm that the resource described corresponds to the resource sought, or to distinguish between two or more resources with similar characteristics select-i.e., to select a resource that is appropriate to the user's needs obtain-i.e., to acquire or access the resource described. The data created using RDA to describe an entity associated with a resource (a person, family, corporate body, concept, etc.) are designed to assist users performing the following tasks: find-i.e., to find information on that entity and on resources associated with the entity identify-i.e., to confirm that the entity described corresponds to the entity sought, or to distinguish between two or more entities with similar names, etc. clarify-i.e., to clarify the relationship between two or more such entities, or to clarify the relationship between the entity described and a name by which that entity is known understand-i.e., to understand why a particular name or title, or form of name or title, has been chosen as the preferred name or title for the entity.

0.00213457 = product of:
  0.00853828 = sum of:
    0.00853828 = product of:
      0.01707656 = sum of:
        0.01707656 = weight(_text_:22 in 2165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01707656 = score(doc=2165,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2165, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 3.2004 14:33:26

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 2986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=2986,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2986, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2986)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0017165683 = product of:
  0.006866273 = sum of:
    0.006866273 = weight(_text_:information in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006866273 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges confronting cataloguing as we have known it and to consider how these challenges might be confronted and whether they may be surmounted. The main focus of this paper is on cataloguing rather than the catalogue, although it is obviously difficult to separate one from the other. First of all, what does "cataloguing" mean? For the purposes of this paper I have adopted a broad definition incorporating the following activities: - description of the resource sufficient for purposes of identification and for differentiation from other similar resources - identification and control of access points - identification and control of relationships with other resources - subject analysis of the resource - assignment of subject indexing terms - assignment of classification numbers The challenges facing cataloguing are all too well known. In no particular order, the major challenges are: - Increasing inputs - New kinds of information resource - Competition from other mediation services. - Perception that cataloguing is high cost and offers poor value for money. - Fiscal constraints - Declining workforce This is a daunting list. We have a choice, we could, to paraphrase John Lennon, "Turn off our minds, relax and float down stream", until we retire, take voluntary redundancy, or retrain as marketing consultants; or, we can choose to confront these challenges and consider what they really mean for cataloguing.

0.0012874262 = product of:
  0.005149705 = sum of:
    0.005149705 = weight(_text_:information in 3777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005149705 = score(doc=3777,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 3777, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3777)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Endlich berichten Frau Dr. Elisabeth Niggerman (DDB) (!!!) und Reiner Diedrichs (GBV) über die Auswirkungen der DFG-Studie. Eine schrittweise Internationalisierung der deutschen Regeln wird mehrheitlich gewünscht. Diese Meinung wird als Alternative vom Standardisierungsausschuss akzeptiert. Es liegen nun Vorschläge der AG-Verbund vor nämlich: - MARC21 ist obligatorisch für Verbundsysteme als Austauschformat - Verbesserungvon Datenaustausch und Fremddatennutzung - Flache Hierarchien und vollständige Information im Datensatz - Obligatorische Verwendung internationaler Codierungen - Intensive Normdatenverwendung - Einheitliche Datenstruktur und einheitliche Formatanwendung Dazu sind folgende Rahmenbedingungen notwendig: - Das Regelwerk soll die Ziele der AG-Verbund effektiv unterstützen - Keine den AACR widersprechenden Regeln - Keine Kann-Beistimmungen für strukturelle Aspekte im Regelwerk - Obligatorische Individualisierung Folgende Punkte wurden vom Standardisierungsausschuss beschlossen: - MARC21 - Deutsch als Ansetzungs- und Arbeitssprache - Vereinheitlichung und Integration der Sonderregeln in einem Werk - Übereinstimmung der Entitäten bei Titel, Personen- und Körperschaftsnamen durch Einführung international üblicher Regeln (im Hinblick auf internationale Normdaten) - Anpassung der Splitregeln bei fortlaufenden Sammelwerken (ein diesbezüglicher Entwurf wurde von der ZDB bereits ausgearbeitet) - Aktive Teilnahme am Geneseprozess der AACR3 - Gemeinsame Normdaten - gemeinsame Ansetzung von Personen bei PND und SWD - Untersuchung zur Bedeutung von Ansetzungs- und Einheitssachtitel "Uniform Title" - Insgesamt sollte eine Bewegung in Richtung - Internationalisierung - Austauschbarkeit von Daten - Kostenreduktion - Konsequente Zielverfolgung und straffe Zeitpläne Die Diskussion zu diesen Vorträgen war kaum erwähnenswert. Als Rahmenfür die Umsetzung von MARC21 und einem angepassten Regelwerk wurden nach wie vor 10 Jahre genannt. In persönlichen Gesprächen wird klar, dass mittlerweile der Umstieg auf MARC21 nicht mehr so gravierend gesehen wird, da die meisten Systeme ein Internformat verwenden und nur die Auslieferung der Daten anstelle von MAB2 und eben in MARC21 erfolgen muss. Beim Regelwerk selbst herrscht eine sehr uneinheitliche Meinung. Manche sind der Meinung, dass im Grunde doch die AACR3 kommen wird, andere sind fest davon überzeugt, dass das deutsche Regelwerk bestehen bleiben wird. Die Änderungsvorschläge der ZDB für die neuen Splitregeln sind jedenfalls eine Angleichung dieser an die AACR2.

0.001213797 = product of:
  0.004855188 = sum of:
    0.004855188 = weight(_text_:information in 175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004855188 = score(doc=175,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.054858685 = fieldWeight in 175, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=175)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

What is, after all the FRBR model? The question is asked in the subtitle itself: is it a "hype or cureall?" It certainly is the talk of the day in libraries and similar institutions, a very popular topic for professional meetings, a challenging task for system vendors and food for thought for scholars both in terminology and in content. As for the solutions it offers, they enable simplified and more structured catalogues of large collections and perhaps easier ways to cataloguing resources of many different types. Once implemented in catalogues, the benefits will be both on the librarian's side and on the end user's side. According to Patrick LeBoeuf the model is a beginning and there are two directions for its development as far as the authors of the articles imply: the first, oriented to the configuration of FRANAR or FRAR, the second, oriented to what has already been established and defined as FRSAR (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records). The latter is meant to build a conceptual model for Group 3 entities within the FRBR framework related to the aboutness of the work and assist in an assessment of the potential for international sharing and use of subject authority data both within the library sector and beyond. A third direction, not present in the work considered, yet mentioned by the editor, is oriented towards the development of "the CIDOC CRM semantic model for cultural heritage information in museums and assimilated institutions" (p. 6). By merging the FRBR working group with the CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group a FRBR/CRM Harmonization Group has been created its scope being the "translation" of FRBR into object-oriented formalism. The work under review is the expected and welcome completion of the FRBR Final Report of 1998, addressing librarians, library science teaching staff, students, and library system vendors, a comprehensive source of information on theoretical aspects and practical application of the FRBR conceptual model. A good companion clarifying many FRBR issues the collection is remarkably well structured and offers a step-by-step insight into the model. An additional feature of the work is the very helpful index at the back of the book providing an easy access to the main topics discussed."