Search (221 results, page 1 of 12)

0.12790363 = product of:
  0.25580725 = sum of:
    0.19572955 = weight(_text_:objects in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19572955 = score(doc=735,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 735, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=735)
    0.0600777 = weight(_text_:22 in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0600777 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 735, 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=735)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Part 1 of a series of articles, exploring the concept of 'the work' in cataloguing practice, which attempts to construct a definition of the term based on AACR theory and practice. The study begins with a consideration of the objects of the catalogue, their history and the evidence that bears on the question of the degree to which the user needs access to the work, as opposed to a particular edition of the work

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Pt.2: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22; Pt.3: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.1, S.25-46; Pt.4: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.2, S.3-24

0.09923969 = product of:
  0.19847938 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=771)
    0.0600777 = weight(_text_:22 in 771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0600777 = score(doc=771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 771, 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=771)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

It is contended that while there are considerable numbers of people interested in the application of information retrieval (IR) software on their home computers in their professional, working and recreational activities, they are not very well served in using it to best advantage. Describes the writer's attempts to transfer some of the recorded good practice of the first information managers to contemporary problems. Data input standards devoted to library organisation may be developed to establish a set of principles to encourage the consistent organisation of the entire range of objects which might be represented in databases. Specific areas of difficulty are examined.

Date

24. 1.2007 19:38:22

0.091359735 = product of:
  0.18271947 = sum of:
    0.13980682 = weight(_text_:objects in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13980682 = score(doc=187,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
    0.042912643 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042912643 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The formal charge for the IFLA study involving international bibliography standards was to delineate the functions that are performed by the bibliographic record with respect to various media, applications, and user needs. The method used was the entity relationship analysis technique. Three groups of entities that are the key objects of interest to users of bibliographic records were defined. The primary group contains four entities: work, expression, manifestation, and item. The second group includes entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content, production, or ownership of entities in the first group. The third group includes entities that represent concepts, objects, events, and places. In the study we identified the attributes associated with each entity and the relationships that are most important to users. The attributes and relationships were mapped to the functional requirements for bibliographic records that were defined in terms of four user tasks: to find, identify, select, and obtain. Basic requirements for national bibliographic records were recommended based on the entity analysis. The recommendations of the study are compared with two standards, AACR (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) and the Dublin Core, to place them into pragmatic context. The results of the study are being used in the review of the complete set of ISBDs as the initial benchmark in determining data elements for each format.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.04942918 = product of:
  0.19771671 = sum of:
    0.19771671 = weight(_text_:objects in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19771671 = score(doc=5718,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.58723795 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.

0.04893239 = product of:
  0.19572955 = sum of:
    0.19572955 = weight(_text_:objects in 7686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19572955 = score(doc=7686,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 7686, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7686)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Traditional cataloguing practices have been geared to printed materials or other materials that have fixed forms. The advent of electronic library materials poses new challenges for cataloguing as electronic objects may exist in multiple and changing versions. Discusses current attempts to organize electronic information objects in a world that is messy, volatile and uncontrolled and traces library cataloguing from manual to electronic organization. Electronic text may be available as a standalone ASCII, PostScript or another file. The file can reside on a floppy disk or on a minicomputer or mainframe computer as a file with a URL address and directory path. Briefly reviews some Internet indexing projects and prototypes, presents a vision of what cataloguing could evolve into the electronic world and discusses what needs to be done to realise this vision

0.04893239 = product of:
  0.19572955 = sum of:
    0.19572955 = weight(_text_:objects in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19572955 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.5813359 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.048550114 = product of:
  0.19420046 = sum of:
    0.19420046 = weight(_text_:22 in 4362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19420046 = score(doc=4362,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.8754574 = fieldWeight in 4362, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4362)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:22:27

0.04194205 = product of:
  0.1677682 = sum of:
    0.1677682 = weight(_text_:objects in 2433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1677682 = score(doc=2433,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.49828792 = fieldWeight in 2433, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2433)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The goal of OCLC's FRBR projects is to examine issues associated with the conversion of a set of bibliographic records to conform to FRBR requirements (a process referred to as "FRBRization"). The goals of this FRBR project were to: - examine issues associated with creating an entity-relationship model for (i.e., "FRBRizing") a non-trivial work - better understand the relationship between the bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic record is sufficient to reliably identify the FRBR entities - to develop a data set that could be used to evaluate FRBRization algorithms. Using an exemplary work as a case study, lead scientist Ed O'Neill sought to: - better understand the relationship between bibliographic records and the bibliographic objects they represent - determine if the information available in the bibliographic records is sufficient to reliably identify FRBR entities.

0.03954334 = product of:
  0.15817337 = sum of:
    0.15817337 = weight(_text_:objects in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15817337 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.46979034 = fieldWeight in 7684, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7684)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the evolving ways of making documents and document like objects bibliographically accessible by the library cataloguing community and reports initiatives. Includes: definition of a basic set of data elements known as the Dublin Core; examination of library cataloguing objectives and record structures; proposals for persistent addresses for resources; and support for the idea of data registry to facilitate interoperability among metadata schemes

0.03954334 = product of:
  0.15817337 = sum of:
    0.15817337 = weight(_text_:objects in 2932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15817337 = score(doc=2932,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.46979034 = fieldWeight in 2932, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2932)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Following a brief history of cataloguing and the MARC record format, describes current challenges in developing suitable international formats and cataloguing rules for dealing with electronic resources. Extensive references to the past and current literature provide an overview of the problems faced. Notes the role of the ISBD, Z39.50 protocol and the integration of Internet objects into the online catalogue

0.03954334 = product of:
  0.15817337 = sum of:
    0.15817337 = weight(_text_:objects in 6100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15817337 = score(doc=6100,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.46979034 = fieldWeight in 6100, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6100)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Librarians create metadata including cataloging to manage and provide access to collections. Two recent technological developments, the explosion in electronic publishing and the conversion of metadata previously unavailable online into machine-readable form, are providing challenges to cataloging. Disparate types of resources, such as images and museum objects, archives, and library collections in print and electronic form, must be brought together in a coherent information environment. While catalogers exclusively cannot do these tasks, they and their skills are essential to bring order out of the chaos of the many different access systems

0.03954334 = product of:
  0.15817337 = sum of:
    0.15817337 = weight(_text_:objects in 432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15817337 = score(doc=432,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.46979034 = fieldWeight in 432, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=432)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Libraries and museums are alike in collecting sources of information, whether print or nonprint items, sound recordings, or three-dimensional objects. The institutions also maintain records of their collections in files or systems which reflect the purpose of the collections. This article compares and contrasts museum registration and library cataloging procedures, suggesting that differences in records management result from philosophical and historical differences. It is suggested also that the competencies of library and information science may be applied to museum registration.

0.03460042 = product of:
  0.13840169 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=919)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Introduces the scope and development of the Text Encoding Initiative's Recommendations, published in Jul 93. Gives a brief overview of the scheme's modular architecture, with particular attention to the proposals for the encoding of bibliographic and descriptive information, of textual records as typed and structured objects and of derived or analytic information extracted from textual records in an integrated and well defined manner

0.03460042 = product of:
  0.13840169 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 3028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=3028,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 3028, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3028)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.03460042 = product of:
  0.13840169 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.

0.03460042 = product of:
  0.13840169 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 1998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=1998,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 1998, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1998)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explores the question "What is an International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) resource in the context of the Semantic Web, and what is the relationship of its description to the linked data?" This question is discussed against the background of the dichotomy between the description and access using the Semantic Web differentiation of the three logical layers: real-world objects, web of data, and special purpose (bibliographic) data. The representation of bibliographic data as linked data is discussed, distinguishing the description of a resource from the iconic/objective and the informational/subjective viewpoints. In the conclusion, the authors give views on possible directions of future development of the ISBD.

0.03460042 = product of:
  0.13840169 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 5128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=5128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 5128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5128)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.03460042 = product of:
  0.13840169 = sum of:
    0.13840169 = weight(_text_:objects in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13840169 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.33668926 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article discusses how libraries can include person identifiers in the MARC format. It suggests using URIs in fields and subfields to help transition the data to an RDF model, and to help prepare the catalog for a Linked Data. It analyzes the selection of URIs and Real-World Objects, and the use of tag 024 to describe person identifiers in authority records. When a creator or collaborator is identified in a work, the identifiers are transferred from authority to the bibliographic record. The article concludes that URI-based descriptions can provide a better experience for users, offering other methods of discovery.

0.034330115 = product of:
  0.13732046 = sum of:
    0.13732046 = weight(_text_:22 in 527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13732046 = score(doc=527,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 527, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=527)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

OCLC systems and services. 9(1993) no.3, S.20-22

0.034330115 = product of:
  0.13732046 = sum of:
    0.13732046 = weight(_text_:22 in 4397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13732046 = score(doc=4397,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22182742 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06334615 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4397, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4397)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Serials librarian. 22(1992), S.371-391