Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020292569 = product of:
  0.060877703 = sum of:
    0.013968632 = weight(_text_:in in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013968632 = score(doc=3632,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.23523843 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
    0.04690907 = weight(_text_:und in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04690907 = score(doc=3632,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.4848303 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

"Katalogisierung" klingt in manchen Ohren altmodisch. Man redet heute von "Metadaten"! Gemeint ist aber nichts völlig anderes. Es gibt nur viele neue Formen, Praktiken und Nutzungen, während sich früher Katalogdaten fast nur in Katalogen und Bibliographien befanden. "Metadaten" ist nur ein neuer Oberbegriff, aber in einer Katalogdatenbank haben wir längst mehr und andersartige Datenelemente und Funktionen als in Zettelkatalogen. Es ist notwendig, weiter auszugreifen als es die klassischen Regelwerke, RAK und AACR, getan haben, und deren hergebrachte Konzepte zu überdenken.

Footnote

Präsentation zum Vortrag "Zur Zukunft der Katalogisierung" während des Österreichischen Bibliothekartages in Linz 22.09.2004, Themenkreis: Google und die Zukunft der bibliothekarischen Erschließung. - Zuletzt aktualisiert: 15.07.2008.

0.016494038 = product of:
  0.04948211 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 2150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=2150,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 2150, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2150)
    0.040207777 = weight(_text_:und in 2150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040207777 = score(doc=2150,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 2150, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2150)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Seit Einführung der neuen Discovery-Kataloge stehen unseren Nutzerinnen und Nutzern zusätzlich Millionen von Dokumenten neben dem lokalen Buchbestand zur Verfügung. Diese Zielgruppe muss in die Lage versetzt werden, die für sie relevanten Titel einfach und sicher zu finden. Die Qualität von Empfehlungsfunktionen und besonders der Relevanz-Ranking-Methoden sind daher für den Erfolg eines Discovery-Systems besonders wichtig. Das Ranking bibliothekarischer Suchmaschinentechnik ignoriert bisher das Feedback durch Nutzerinnen und Nutzer. Die Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen (SuUB) setzt mit dem in Bremen entwickelten Discovery-System "E-LIB" seit Sommer 2011 zusätzlich auf eine Modifikation des Treffer-Rankings über Popularitätsfaktoren der Medien wie Klickstatistik, Auflagen- und Exemplarzahl. Die maßgeschneiderte Entwicklung eines eigenen Bibliothekskataloges, den die SuUB seit 2004 mit dem Discovery-System "E-LIB" in Bremen betreibt, erlaubt die schnelle und flexible Anpassung von Retrievalfunktionen an die Bedürfnisse der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer vor Ort.

0.014422532 = product of:
  0.043267597 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 4001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=4001,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4001, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4001)
    0.035538986 = weight(_text_:und in 4001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035538986 = score(doc=4001,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.3673144 = fieldWeight in 4001, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4001)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Das Exzellenzcluster Kognitive Interaktionstechnologie (CITEC) an der Universität Bielefeld beschäftigt sich seit 2013 mit der virtuellen Realität (VR). Ausgehend von konkreten Projektkooperationen (Publikations- und Forschungsdatenmanagement) mit der Universitätsbibliothek ist die Idee entstanden, mit der in 2016 neu angebotenen Konsumer-VR-Hardware die im Labor entwickelten Interaktionstechniken auf geeignete Szenarien im Bereich von bibliothekarischen Umgebungen anzuwenden. Als interessantes Anwendungsgebiet kristallisierte sich im gemeinsamen Diskurs die Literatursuche heraus: Als Suchsystem wurde die Bielefelder BASE-Datenbank (d.i. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine mit inzwischen mehr als 100 Mio. indexierten Dokumenten) ausgewählt. Diese Auswahl erfolgte vor dem Hintergrund, dass sich die von zahlreichen externen Institutionen bereits genutzte API-Schnittstelle als universell und robust erwiesen hat und umfangreiche Funktionen bereitstellt. Auf der Grundlage der umfangreichen theoretischen und praktischen Erfahrungen des CITEC mit VRTechniken wurde der Prototyp für eine virtuelle Suchumgebung realisiert, der ein Retrieval in einem Suchraum von Online-Dokumenten erlaubt. Die Nutzerinnen und Nutzer können die Suchanfrage explorativ zusammenstellen und dabei die Ergebnisse intuitiv verwalten. Unterstützt werden sie dabei durch Ergebnisanzeige, Sortierung, Optimierung des Suchergebnisses mittels Suchverfeinerung (Drilldown-basiert) oder Anfrageerweiterung und Wiederverwendung von abgelegten Ergebnissen. Gleichzeitig wird der Zugriff- und Lizenzstatus visualisiert und die Detailanzeige der Metadaten des Objektes integriert.

Footnote

Vortrag anlässlich des Bibliothekartages 2017 in Frankfurt.

0.013322966 = product of:
  0.039968897 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=3611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
    0.032829512 = weight(_text_:und in 3611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032829512 = score(doc=3611,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.33931053 = fieldWeight in 3611, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3611)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Suchmaschinen befinden sich einerseits in einem beständigen Wandel. Andererseits gibt es immer wieder Entwicklungen, die die Suche "auf eine neue Ebene" heben. Eine solche Entwicklung, die wir zurzeit erleben, wird unter dem Label "Next Generation Search Systems" geführt. Der Begriff fasst die Veränderungen durch eine Vielfalt von Geräten und Eingabemöglichkeiten, die Verfügbarkeit von Verhaltensdaten en masse und den Wandel von Dokumenten zu Antworten zusammen.

0.013036655 = product of:
  0.039109964 = sum of:
    0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012620768 = score(doc=1831,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1831, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1831)
    0.026489196 = weight(_text_:und in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026489196 = score(doc=1831,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27378 = fieldWeight in 1831, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1831)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Die Resource Description and Access (RDA) wird für den deutschsprachigen Raum das neue Regelwerk für die bibliothekarische Erschliessung der Bestände. In diesem Regelwerk wird auch die Sacherschliessung neu geregelt. Zurzeit sind diese Seiten noch leer. Doch wie soll ein Regelwerk für die Sacherschliessung aussehen? Kriterien für eine Regelung fehlen, zu stark hat sich das Umfeld der Inhaltserschliessung in den letzten Jahren geändert. Auch von der Schlagworttheorie her sind noch keine Hinweise in Sicht. Deshalb wird in verschiedenen Gremien intensiv diskutiert, wie eine zukunftsfähige Sacherschliessung aussehen könnte. In welchem Rahmen bewegt sich die Diskussion und woran soll sich die Regelwerksentwicklung für den Sachkatalog orientieren? Der Beitrag erwägt zwischen der Sachkataloggeschichte einerseits und dem modernen Datenmanagement im Netz andererseits die Bedeutung und die Rolle eines Sacherschliessungsregelwerks.
"Fazit: Die Sacherschliessung im Bibliothekskontext richtet sich nach dem Angebot und dem Zugang, den die Bibliothek bietet. Ein Regelwerk muss so gestaltet sein, dass die Bibliothek die Erschliessungstiefe selbst bestimmen kann. Im Datenaustausch macht dann die Übernahme von Fremddaten nur unter ähnlichen Bibliotheken Sinn. Metakataloge können keine sinnvollen Facetten anbieten, hier muss ein Relevanz-Ranking genügen. Dasselbe gilt für die Discovery Tools, in denen Quellen mit verschiedenen Erschliessungssystemen unter einer Oberfläche suchbar gemacht werden. In Kombination mit den Daten der Formalerschliessung sollen hingegen auch bei den Discovery Tools Filter so gestaltet sein, dass in spezifischen Beständen, die intellektuell sachlich erschlossen sind, ein Index der Schlagwörter als Themenfacetten angezeigt und genutzt werden kann. Die RDA wird dafür den Rahmen geben müssen."

0.012647232 = product of:
  0.037941694 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 4601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=4601,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4601, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4601)
    0.029017461 = weight(_text_:und in 4601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029017461 = score(doc=4601,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.29991096 = fieldWeight in 4601, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4601)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (DNB) verfolgt das Ziel, den unter Culturegraph.org verfügbaren großen Datenbestand von mehr als 160 Millionen Titeldaten deutschsprachiger Bibliotheksverbünde sowie der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek und der British National Bibliography über Analysen, Verknüpfungen und Auswertungen in größerem Umfang nutzbar zu machen. Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick, welche Themenstellungen und Methoden bislang im Zentrum stehen. Dies ist einerseits die Bündelung von Werken, die erlaubt, mehrere Ausgaben, Auflagen oder Übersetzungen eines Werks zusammenzuführen. Inhaltserschließende Informationen wie Klassifikation oder verbale Erschließung, ebenso wie Normdatenverknüpfungen, können so auf alle Mitglieder eines Bündels übertragen werden, so dass ein Gewinn an Standardisierung und Erschließungstiefe zu erreichen ist. Andererseits können über bibliothekarische Daten hinaus auch externe Datenquellen zur Anreicherung herangezogen werden. Dies wird anhand eines Abgleichs von Personen in der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) und der Datenbank Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) dargestellt. Unter Verwendung der Culturegraph-Titeldaten werden Personen mittels der von ihnen verfassten Publikationen abgeglichen und zusammengeführt. Abschließend werden einige statistische Auswertungen des Datenbestandes vorgestellt.

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des 107. Deutschen Bibliothekartages 2018 in Berlin, Themenkreis "Fokus Erschließen & Bewahren". https://www.o-bib.de/article/view/5414. https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/2018H4S166-180.

0.012300599 = product of:
  0.036901798 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 3982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=3982,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 3982, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3982)
    0.026805183 = weight(_text_:und in 3982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026805183 = score(doc=3982,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 3982, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3982)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Der Text zeigt anhand einer essayistisch selektiven Rückschau in die Zeit vor den Digital Humanities bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftliche Ansätze zur Entwicklung hypertextueller Werkzeuge für Bibliographie-Verwaltung und Strukturierung des wissenschaftlichen Diskurses - eine zukunftsweisende Idee für eine digitale Geisteswissenschaft zur Unterstützung geisteswissenschaftlicher Denkarbeit jenseits von reinem 'distant thinking'.

Content

Beitrag in einerm Schwerpunkt "Post-Digital Humanities". Vgl.: http://libreas.eu/ausgabe30/frank/.

0.0018033426 = product of:
  0.010820055 = sum of:
    0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010820055 = score(doc=1172,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This think piece tells why the online library catalog fell from grace and why new directions pertaining to cataloging simplification and primary sources will not attract people back to the online catalog. It proposes an alternative direction that has greater likelihood of regaining the online catalog's lofty status and longtime users. Such a direction will require paradigm shifts in library cataloging and in the design and development of online library catalogs that heed catalog users' longtime demands for improvements to the searching experience. Our failure to respond accordingly may permanently exile scholarly and scientific information to a netherworld where no one searches while less reliable, accurate, and objective sources of information thrive in a paradise where people prefer to search for information.
The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.0017848461 = product of:
  0.010709076 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=1230,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

A Virtual union catalog is a possible alternative to the centralized database of distributed resources found in many library systems. Such a catalog would not be maintained in a single location but would be created in real time by searching each local campus or affiliate library's catalog through the Z39.50 protocol. This would eliminate the redundancy of record storage as well as the expense of loading and maintaining access to the central catalog. This article describes a test implementation of a virtual union catalog for the University of California system. It describes some of the differences between the virtual catalog and the existing, centralized union catalog (MELVYL). The research described in the paper suggests enhancements that must be made if the virtual union catalog is to become a reasonable service alternative to the MELVYL® catalog.

0.0015740865 = product of:
  0.009444519 = sum of:
    0.009444519 = weight(_text_:in in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009444519 = score(doc=3876,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15905021 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 4105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=4105,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 4105, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4105)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Drawings of The Florentine Painters project created the first online database of Florentine Renaissance drawings by applying Linked Open Data (LOD) techniques to a foundational text of the same name, first published by Bernard Berenson in 1903 (revised and expanded editions, 1938 and 1961). The goal was to make Berenson's catalog information-still an essential information resource today-available in a machine-readable format, allowing researchers to access the source content through open data services. This paper provides a technical overview of the methods and processes applied in the conversion of Berenson's catalog to LOD using the CIDOC-CRM ontology; it also discusses the different phases of the project, focusing on the challenges and issues of data transformation and publishing. The project was funded by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and organized by Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Catalog: http://florentinedrawings.itatti.harvard.edu. Data Endpoint: http://data.itatti.harvard.edu.

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=2525,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=2945,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

RDA was created in response to complaints about the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, especially the call for a more international, principle-based content standard that takes the perspective of the conceptual models of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) and FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data). The past and ongoing process for continuous improvement to RDA is through the Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (known as the JSC, but recently renamed the RDA Steering Committee - RSC) to make RDA even more international and principle-based.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft zu RDA.

0.0012881019 = product of:
  0.007728611 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=3871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 2430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=2430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 2430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2430)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)