Search (215 results, page 11 of 11)

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2288, 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=2288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Bibliographic data is used to describe resources held in the collections of libraries, archives and museums. That data is mostly available on the Web today and mostly as linked data. Also on the Web are the controlled vocabulary systems of name authority files, like the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), classification systems, and subject terms. These systems offer their own linked data to potentially help users find the information they want - whether at their local library or anywhere in the world that is willing to make their resources available. We have found it beneficial to merge authority data for names on a global level, as the entities are relatively clear. That is not true for subject concepts and terminology that have categorisation systems developed according to varying principles and schemes and are in multiple languages. Rather than requiring everyone in the world to use the same categorisation/classification system in the same language, we know that the Web offers us the opportunity to add descriptors assigned around the world using multiple systems from multiple perspectives to identify our resources. Those descriptors add value to refine searches, help users worldwide and share globally what each library does locally.

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 2767) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=2767,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2767, 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=2767)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.505-517

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 2936) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=2936,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2936, 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=2936)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.6, S.1446-1461

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=2958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2958, 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=2958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 3186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=3186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3186, 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=3186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.5, S.753-764

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3871, 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=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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.

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=4018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4018, 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=4018)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.1, S.146-157

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 4629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=4629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4629, 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=4629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.6, S.607-618

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 4676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=4676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4676, 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=4676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.1, S.61-70

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 5172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=5172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5172, 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=5172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

One of the big challenges facing academic libraries today is to increase the relevance of the libraries to their user communities. If the libraries can increase the visibility of their resources on the open web, it will increase the chances of the libraries to reach to their user communities via the user's first search experience. BIBFRAME and library Linked Data will enable libraries to publish their resources in a way that the Web understands, consume Linked Data to enrich their resources relevant to the libraries' user communities, and visualize networks across collections. However, one of the important steps for transitioning to BIBFRAME and library Linked Data involves crosswalks, mapping MARC fields and subfields across data models and performing necessary data reformatting to be in compliance with the specifications of the new model, which is currently BIBFRAME 2.0. This article looks into how the Library of Congress has mapped library bibliographic data from the MARC format to the BIBFRAME 2.0 model and vocabulary published and updated since April 2016, available from http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/index.html based on the recently released conversion specifications and converter, developed by the Library of Congress with input from many community members. The BIBFRAME 2.0 standard and conversion tools will enable libraries to transform bibliographic data from MARC into BIBFRAME 2.0, which introduces a Linked Data model as the improved method of bibliographic control for the future, and make bibliographic information more useful within and beyond library communities.

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 5223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=5223,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5223, 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=5223)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.5, S.488-498

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 5327) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=5327,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5327, 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=5327)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.8, S.858-871

1.6444239E-4 = product of:
  0.0024666358 = sum of:
    0.0024666358 = product of:
      0.0049332716 = sum of:
        0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 5464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0049332716 = score(doc=5464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5464, 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=5464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Purpose Library work is increasingly being explored from the perspective of design. Still, little work has actively explored specific aspects of design as they relate to library cataloging. The purpose of this paper is to dive deeper into the relationship between library cataloging and design by exploring a specific aspect of design - the concept of repertoire, or the use of previous experiences and bodies of knowledge during current work. Design/methodology/approach To examine catalogers' use of repertoire, this paper employed a juxtaposition of field observations of professional library catalogers' work processes with elements of "think-aloud" protocols. Findings The researchers identified three major types of repertory knowledge that were demonstrated by catalogers: internally embedded repertory knowledge; externally embedded repertory knowledge; and seeking out new knowledge using other sources. Additionally, certain trends were noted concerning which repertory knowledge was utilized for which particular task. Determining subject and genre headings were noted for relying quite extensively on internal repertoire such as personal knowledge and institutional knowledge, along with external sources, such as personal notes and local examples. Originality/value This paper adds to a growing body of work calling for design approaches in libraries and related information settings, and breaks ground by applying the previously unexplored concept of repertoire to librarianship, specifically library cataloging, which offers a new perspective on cataloger's judgement.

1.3155391E-4 = product of:
  0.0019733086 = sum of:
    0.0019733086 = product of:
      0.0039466172 = sum of:
        0.0039466172 = weight(_text_:information in 2049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039466172 = score(doc=2049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2049, 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=2049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Designed for the digital world and an expanding universe of metadata users, RDA: Resource Description and Access is the new, unified cataloguing standard. Benefits of RDA include: - A structure based on the conceptual models of FRBR (functional requirements for bibliographic data) and FRAD (functional requirements for authority data) to help catalog users find the information they need more easily - A flexible framework for content description of digital resources that also serves the needs of libraries organizing traditional resources - A better fit with emerging technologies, enabling institutions to introduce efficiencies in data capture and storage retrieval. The online RDA Toolkit provides a one-stop resource for evaluating and implementing RDA, and is the most effective way to interact with the new standard. It includes searchable and browseable RDA instructions; two views of RDA content, by table of contents and by element set; user-created and sharable Workflows and Mappings-tools to customize RDA to support your organization's training, internal processes, and local policies; Library of Congress-Program for Cooperative Cataloging Policy Statements (LC-PCC PS) and links to other relevant cataloguing resources; and the full text of AACR2 with links to RDA. This full-text print version of RDA offers a snapshot that serves as an offline access point to help solo and part-time cataloguers evaluate RDA, as well as to support training and classroom use in any size institution. An index is included. The online RDA Toolkit includes PDFs, but purchasing the print version offers a convenient, time-saving option.

1.3155391E-4 = product of:
  0.0019733086 = sum of:
    0.0019733086 = product of:
      0.0039466172 = sum of:
        0.0039466172 = weight(_text_:information in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039466172 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2321, 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=2321)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss and shed light on the following questions: What is an author? Is it a person who writes? Or, is it, in information, an iconic taxonomic designation (some might say a "classification") for a group of writings that are recognized by the public in some particular way? What does it mean when a search engine, or catalog, asks a user to enter the name of an author? And how does that accord with the manner in which the data have been entered in association with the names of the entities identified with the concept of authorship? Design/methodology/approach - The authors use several cases as bases of phenomenological discourse analysis, combining as best the authors can components of eidetic bracketing (a Husserlian technique for isolating noetic reduction) with Foucauldian discourse analysis. The two approaches are not sympathetic or together cogent, so the authors present them instead as alternative explanations alongside empirical evidence. In this way the authors are able to isolate components of iconic "authorship" and then subsequently engage them in discourse. Findings - An "author" is an iconic name associated with a class of works. An "author" is a role in public discourse between a set of works and the culture that consumes them. An "author" is a role in cultural sublimation, or a power broker in deabstemiation. An "author" is last, if ever, a person responsible for the intellectual content of a published work. The library catalog's attribution of "author" is at odds with the Foucauldian discursive comprehension of the role of an "author." Originality/value - One of the main assets of this paper is the combination of Foucauldian discourse analysis with phenomenological analysis for the study of the "author." The authors turned to Foucauldian discourse analysis to discover the loci of power in the interactions of the public with the named authorial entities. The authors also looked to phenomenological analysis to consider the lived experience of users who encounter the same named authorial entities. The study of the "author" in this combined way facilitated the revelation of new aspects of the role of authorship in search engines and library catalogs.