Search (223 results, page 1 of 12)

0.12708786 = product of:
  0.25417572 = sum of:
    0.25417572 = sum of:
      0.19879025 = weight(_text_:mass in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19879025 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.51309484 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
      0.05538548 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05538548 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.087840274 = sum of:
  0.060147535 = product of:
    0.1804426 = sum of:
      0.1804426 = weight(_text_:objects in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1804426 = score(doc=735,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02769274 = product of:
    0.05538548 = sum of:
      0.05538548 = weight(_text_:22 in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05538548 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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(1/2)

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

0.070223466 = sum of:
  0.042530727 = product of:
    0.12759218 = sum of:
      0.12759218 = weight(_text_:objects in 771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12759218 = score(doc=771,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.02769274 = product of:
    0.05538548 = sum of:
      0.05538548 = weight(_text_:22 in 771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05538548 = score(doc=771,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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(1/2)

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

0.06274305 = sum of:
  0.04296252 = product of:
    0.12888756 = sum of:
      0.12888756 = weight(_text_:objects in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12888756 = score(doc=187,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.01978053 = product of:
    0.03956106 = sum of:
      0.03956106 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03956106 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.058398657 = 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(1/2)

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

0.049697563 = product of:
  0.099395126 = sum of:
    0.099395126 = product of:
      0.19879025 = sum of:
        0.19879025 = weight(_text_:mass in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19879025 = score(doc=1423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.51309484 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The recent success of recordings in Slavic liturgical music pose problems for cataloguers because the majority of them are not familiar with the services and terminology, the titles and problematical and the composers are difficult to trace. Describes the Divine Liturgy and the Vespers in parallel with the Mass and the Roman Catholic service. Proposes uniform titles for current musical fields and discusses terminology, language and biographic sources for composers. Makes some suggestions for the reconcilation of the realities of Slavic liturgical music and the uniform titles, classification and subject headings recommended by the Library of Congress

0.049697563 = product of:
  0.099395126 = sum of:
    0.099395126 = product of:
      0.19879025 = sum of:
        0.19879025 = weight(_text_:mass in 782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19879025 = score(doc=782,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.38743374 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.51309484 = fieldWeight in 782, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.634292 = idf(docFreq=157, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=782)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The vast, uncontrolled, mass of data available on the Internet poses specific problems for librarians, and in particular for cataloguers. In addition to problems of scale, quality and stability of the information available electronically, the British Library has concerns peculiar to a national archive. The Electronic Media Group (EMG) within the Cataloguing Department at the British Library has been addressing some of these issues while investigating the cataloguing of works in new forms. Outlines some of the problems addressed and gives brief overviews of similar work and experiments discivered by the EMG as being conducted by other cataloguers and information scientists in this field

0.04475823 = product of:
  0.08951646 = sum of:
    0.08951646 = product of:
      0.17903292 = sum of:
        0.17903292 = weight(_text_:22 in 4362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17903292 = score(doc=4362,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:22:27

0.03164885 = product of:
  0.0632977 = sum of:
    0.0632977 = product of:
      0.1265954 = sum of:
        0.1265954 = weight(_text_:22 in 527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1265954 = score(doc=527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.03164885 = product of:
  0.0632977 = sum of:
    0.0632977 = product of:
      0.1265954 = sum of:
        0.1265954 = weight(_text_:22 in 4397) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1265954 = score(doc=4397,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

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

0.030379092 = product of:
  0.060758185 = sum of:
    0.060758185 = product of:
      0.18227455 = sum of:
        0.18227455 = weight(_text_:objects in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.18227455 = score(doc=5718,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.030073768 = product of:
  0.060147535 = sum of:
    0.060147535 = product of:
      0.1804426 = sum of:
        0.1804426 = weight(_text_:objects in 7686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1804426 = score(doc=7686,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.030073768 = product of:
  0.060147535 = sum of:
    0.060147535 = product of:
      0.1804426 = sum of:
        0.1804426 = weight(_text_:objects in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1804426 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.310393 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.027973894 = product of:
  0.055947788 = sum of:
    0.055947788 = product of:
      0.111895576 = sum of:
        0.111895576 = weight(_text_:22 in 4367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111895576 = score(doc=4367,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 4367, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 19:36:10
22. 1.2000 19:40:40

0.02769274 = product of:
  0.05538548 = sum of:
    0.05538548 = product of:
      0.11077096 = sum of:
        0.11077096 = weight(_text_:22 in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11077096 = score(doc=2857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 13(1991) no.2, S.3-22

0.02769274 = product of:
  0.05538548 = sum of:
    0.05538548 = product of:
      0.11077096 = sum of:
        0.11077096 = weight(_text_:22 in 2391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11077096 = score(doc=2391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

22 S

0.02769274 = product of:
  0.05538548 = sum of:
    0.05538548 = product of:
      0.11077096 = sum of:
        0.11077096 = weight(_text_:22 in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11077096 = score(doc=2900,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.02769274 = product of:
  0.05538548 = sum of:
    0.05538548 = product of:
      0.11077096 = sum of:
        0.11077096 = weight(_text_:22 in 4594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11077096 = score(doc=4594,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4594, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4594)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 9.1996 16:03:22

0.02769274 = product of:
  0.05538548 = sum of:
    0.05538548 = product of:
      0.11077096 = sum of:
        0.11077096 = weight(_text_:22 in 6339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11077096 = score(doc=6339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18. 8.2002 17:22:13

0.02769274 = product of:
  0.05538548 = sum of:
    0.05538548 = product of:
      0.11077096 = sum of:
        0.11077096 = weight(_text_:22 in 6838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11077096 = score(doc=6838,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6838, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 13(2001) H.3, S.20-22

0.02769274 = product of:
  0.05538548 = sum of:
    0.05538548 = product of:
      0.11077096 = sum of:
        0.11077096 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11077096 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20450215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.058398657 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1757, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1757)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 8.2003 15:50:22