Search (121 results, page 6 of 7)

0.0016045496 = product of:
  0.0032090992 = sum of:
    0.0032090992 = product of:
      0.0064181983 = sum of:
        0.0064181983 = weight(_text_:a in 1675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0064181983 = score(doc=1675,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12085741 = fieldWeight in 1675, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An overview of the FRBR model, and how it can improve access to information through the helpful organization of metadata records. What is FRBR, and why is everyone talking about it? Is it really going to revolutionize cataloguing? And if so, what form will it take? This book is written for librarians, bibliographic systems designers, library and information science faculty and students, and anyone else who is interested in learning about the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and how following the FRBR model can improve access to information through helpful organization of the metadata records that are surrogates for information resources. Serials, art, music, moving images, maps, and archival materials are just a few of the formats covered. Not for catalogers only!

Footnote

Resonanz: "Arlene Taylor and her compadres don't even try to teach you how to construct a hierarchical record. Instead, they direct their efforts toward showcasing what's possible when digital technology and traditional cataloging practice meet. This is the future of cataloging." - Library Media Connection "The emergence of this textbook is testimony to the breadth and depth of work done to date. It documents much of that work, and provides a good basic introduction to FRBR that is broadly understandable... The relational concepts within FRBR are complicated and can be challenging. This book does a good job of illuminating them in a straightforward manner. It also describes how the application of the FRBR concepts could improve our systems of bibliographic access in very specific ways... For those of us that really want or need to be able to predict the impact that FRBR will have on our work, this is an accessible explanation of the current state of the art. As such it is a real contribution to our understanding." - TechKNOW "Understanding FRBR... features chapters contributed by leading authorities in the cataloging field... It offers a basic introduction to FRBR, discussions about FRBR, FRAD (functional requirements for authority data), and RDA (resource description and access), and the issues involved in using FRBR in nontraditional library settings such as with cartographic materials and music. Both books are well illustrated and include numerous bibliographical resources.' [Reviewed in conjuntion with FRBR: A Guide for the Perplexed]." - Library Journal "Taylor and her contributors cover FRBR and introduce the reader to FRAD as well... All chapters conclude with current and useful references to further reading and more information." - Booklist "Understanding FRBR is clearly written, well illustrated (many of the concepts are clarified by very helpful diagrams), and well indexed; additionally, chapters feature extensive bibliographies, many of which provide URLs to the IFLA groups' documents. While it may seem that this book is of interest only to catalogers, the application of FRBR will change the structure of catalog and the systems used to store and display it; therefore, it is an important text for systems librarians, reference librarians, and anybody else interested in the future of the organization and display of bibliographic information." - College & Research Libraries "Understanding FRBR is a useful and timely book that brings together recent developments in FRBR and offers several assessments of it." - Technicalities "No cataloguer, bibliographic systems designer or library and information science lecturers and students should be without this book. It is a useful resource in acquiring an understanding of what FRBR is about and how it will change the way in which cataloguers will think about cataloguing in future." - The Electronic Library

0.0015127839 = product of:
  0.0030255679 = sum of:
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060511357 = score(doc=3859,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data - modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid - 1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early 20th - century British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911 - 1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can conceivably be classified. These he first divided into accidental and inseparable attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition - level and copy - level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into physical and non - physical attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstraction hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity - the book - , whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

Type

a

0.0015127839 = product of:
  0.0030255679 = sum of:
    0.0030255679 = product of:
      0.0060511357 = sum of:
        0.0060511357 = weight(_text_:a in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0060511357 = score(doc=4141,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data-modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid-1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early twentiethcentury British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911-1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can be classified. These he first divided into "accidental" and "inseparable" attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition-level and copy-level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into "physical" and "non-physical" attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstract hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity-the book-whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5631,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=5652,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 5488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=5488,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5488, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5488)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article consists of three parts: (1) Introduction, (2) Cataloging and classification of manuscripts, and (3) Cataloging and classification of printed matters in Iran. In the introduction, after a short review of Iranian libraries, the historical background of Fihrist is touched upon. In the second section, the historical development of cataloging of manuscripts is discussed, emphasising the catalogs of manuscripts of the Parliament, Astani Qods, and the National Library as examples. In the third section, the history of cataloging and classification of printed books in modern times is reviewed: This event was initiated in Iran through formal and informal courses taught mainly by foreign lecturers. The initiation of the MLS degree at the University of Tehran and the establishment of TEBROC paved the way for standard rules and methods. With the amalgamation of TEBROC in the National Library, modern ways and means were developed more rapidly, hence computerization of cataloging, CIP, and IRANMARC.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 5490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=5490,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 5490, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 1943 the Japanese League of Young Librarians published Nippon Catalog Rules (NCR1942) based on ALA 1908, and adopted the author main-entry system for Japanese and Western materials. After World War II, the Japan Library Association (JLA) compiled and published NCR1952, based on ALA 1949 and LC 1949 but maintained the author main-entry system. The main-entry system was then replaced by an alternative heading method, which came to be known as the Description-Independent-System (DIS). NCR1965 adopted the main entry principle, which was based on the Paris Principles of 1961. NCR1977 was compiled and published by the JLA Cataloging Committee and based upon a "no-main-entry principle." Then in 1987, the Committee published the standard edition of the rules, which was completely compatible with the International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD). NCR1987R was published in 1994 and NCR1987R01 in 2001, which included revised "Chapter 9: Computer Files," devised according to ISBD(ER).

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2625,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2625, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The article aims to provide an update on the 2009 Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) and on the status of work on the Statement by the IFLA Cataloguing Section. The article begins with a summary of the drafting process of the ICP by the IME ICC, International Meeting of Experts on an International Cataloguing Code, focusing in particular on the first meeting (IME ICC1) and on the earlier drafts of the 2009 Statement. It then analyzes both the major innovations and the unsatisfactory aspects of the ICP. Finally, it explains and comments on the recent documents by the IFLA Cataloguing Section relating to the ICP, which express their intention to revise the Statement and to verify the convenience of drawing up an international cataloguing code. The latter intention is considered in detail and criticized by the author in the light of the recent publication of the RDA, Resource Description and Access. The article is complemented by an updated bibliography on the ICP.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=702,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging principles and objectives guide the formation of cataloging rules governing the organization of information within the library catalog, as well as the function of the catalog itself. Changes in technologies wrought by the internet and the web have been the driving forces behind shifting cataloging practice and reconfigurations of cataloging rules. Modern cataloging principles and objectives started in 1841 with the creation of Panizzi's 91 Rules for the British Museum and gained momentum with Charles Cutter's Rules for Descriptive Cataloging (1904). The first Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) was adopted in 1961, holding their place through such codifications as AACR and AACR2 in the 1970s and 1980s. Revisions accelerated starting in 2003 with the three original FR models. The Library Reference Model (LRM) in 2017 acted as a catalyst for the evolution of principles and objectives culminating in the creation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2013.

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 7164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=7164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 7164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 5518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=5518,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5518, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=292,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 3706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=3706,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3706, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001353075 = product of:
  0.00270615 = sum of:
    0.00270615 = product of:
      0.0054123 = sum of:
        0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 2426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0054123 = score(doc=2426,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2426, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2426)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=731,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 731, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This book offers a comprehensive guide to the world of metadata, from its origins in the ancient cities of the Middle East, to the Semantic Web of today. The author takes us on a journey through the centuries-old history of metadata up to the modern world of crowdsourcing and Google, showing how metadata works and what it is made of. The author explores how it has been used ideologically and how it can never be objective. He argues how central it is to human cultures and the way they develop. Metadata: Shaping Knowledge from Antiquity to the Semantic Web is for all readers with an interest in how we humans organize our knowledge and why this is important. It is suitable for those new to the subject as well as those know its basics. It also makes an excellent introduction for students of information science and librarianship.

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 4765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=4765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 4765, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0010148063 = product of:
  0.0020296127 = sum of:
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = weight(_text_:a in 5667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0040592253 = score(doc=5667,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 5667, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5667)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

4.2283593E-4 = product of:
  8.4567186E-4 = sum of:
    8.4567186E-4 = product of:
      0.0016913437 = sum of:
        0.0016913437 = weight(_text_:a in 523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0016913437 = score(doc=523,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.03184872 = fieldWeight in 523, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=523)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

4.2283593E-4 = product of:
  8.4567186E-4 = sum of:
    8.4567186E-4 = product of:
      0.0016913437 = sum of:
        0.0016913437 = weight(_text_:a in 3029) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0016913437 = score(doc=3029,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.03184872 = fieldWeight in 3029, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3029)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Schrettinger beschreibt hier das bis zum heutigen Tag im Kern nicht befriedigend geklärte grundsätzliche Problem einer einheitlich gehandhabten intellektuellen sachlichen Erschließung von Literatur. Es ist dabei nicht so, dass Schrettinger sich andererseits der Gefahr dieses ganz auf die Person des Bearbeiters zugeschnittenen Arbeitens nicht bewusst gewesen wäre, stellt er sich doch selbst die Frage: »Aber wie wird es dann um die Fortsetzung und Vollendung dieser weitaussehenden Arbeit stehen, wenn das einzige dazu verwendete Individuum altersschwach werden oder sterben sollte?« Im Falle von Schrettingers Realkatalog beschloss die Leitung der Münchner Hof- und Staatsbibliothek nach seinem Tod im Jahre 1851 das Vorhaben einzustellen und den Realkatalog nicht weiterzuführen. Der älteste Schlagwortkatalog der WeIt, durch den Schrettinger in »dritter Potencierung« am liebsten auch noch die unselbstständig erschienenen Aufsätze und Abhandlungen erschlossen hätte, blieb ein Torso, der allerdings noch heute für Recherchen nach Literatur des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts benutzt wird. Gerade an diesem Umstand lässt sich erkennen, wie zukunftsweisend Schrettingers Denken und Wirken war. Dies gilt im Übrigen auch für seine in seinem Handbuch geäußerten und womöglich bald schon wieder aktuellen Forderungen nach eigenen Bibliotheksbauten, festen finanziellen Etats sowie speziell ausgebildeten,fest angestellten Berufsbibliothekaren: »Ein wahrer Bibliothekar muß nämlich a) das ganze Reich der Wissenschaften und Künste mit gleicher Liebe umfassen; er darf also durchaus kein Fach vorzüglich begünstigen; b) seine ganze Geisteskraft und Zeit (mit Ausnahme der zur Erhaltung seiner Gesundheit nöthigen Erholungsstunden) mit völliger Verzichtleistung auf literarische Privat=Arbeiten, der Bearbeitung und Verwaltung der Bibliothek weihen.« Kann man es schöner formulieren?"