Search (66 results, page 1 of 4)

0.08504569 = product of:
  0.21261421 = sum of:
    0.19681333 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19681333 = score(doc=5622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.853668 = fieldWeight in 5622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5622)
    0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 5622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015800884 = score(doc=5622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5622)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

0.044836253 = product of:
  0.11209063 = sum of:
    0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098406665 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.426834 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
    0.013683967 = weight(_text_:of in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013683967 = score(doc=1428,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Library information searching lacks a descriptive theory which explains how a user decides to borrow one book and not another. Such theory should act as a reference framework against which cataloguing rules and the classification system can be measured, and should be based on 2 complementary perspectives, described in detail: modern classification theory, which explains what cataloguing and classification involve, and philosophy of science, which explains what happens when the user meets the catalogue record. Catalogue information must answer which work is described, and why this work on the subject is chosen. A descriptive theory is especially necessary for knowing what new information to add to the catalogue. Discusses this in a subsequent article

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Draft of a descriptive theory of catalogue searching / information retrieval

0.040906038 = product of:
  0.10226509 = sum of:
    0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084348574 = score(doc=2586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
    0.01791652 = weight(_text_:of in 2586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01791652 = score(doc=2586,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2586, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2586)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

In pt.1, argued that modern classification theory and philosophy of science can help us understand problems of searching. In pt.2, discusses the problems in a more technical sense. considers thesauri and studies of of concept formation: choice of subject headings; definitions, and associations between subject headings; and the librarian as intermediary between the users and the library's texts. Tests the hypothesis that a catalogue record can be improved by adding information which makes the record more precise. If a record clearly indicates that a book is a typical or non-typical book on a subject, no improvement is necessary. discusses how and what new information to add and psychological barriers to this

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Draft of a descriptive theory of catalogue searching / information retrieval. Pt.2: what can concretely be done to improve searching in catalogue information

0.018404907 = product of:
  0.046012264 = sum of:
    0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026202802 = score(doc=2825,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 2825, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2825)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 2825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=2825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2825, 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=2825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A discussion of the importance of clear cataloguing policies and routines as the basis of quality control, in relation to the methods used in the College of Mexico Library. The fundamental principle is to prevent errors occuring rather than to correct them subsequently. Indices of quality and effiency in relation to errors which do and do not affect retrieval, established through monthly review of samples of the work of each cataloguer, are used to monitor activities and ensure high standards. This process, essentially collaborative, promotes an overall culture of quality

Date

30. 1.1999 19:22:45

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: Measures of quality in the creation of library catalogues

0.017404316 = product of:
  0.043510787 = sum of:
    0.023701325 = weight(_text_:of in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023701325 = score(doc=600,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article first compares and contrasts the essential, fundamental differences between traditional and digital information mediums. It then reexamines the role of the online public access catalog (OPAC), refines the definition of library's catalog, and advocates the addition of Internet resources within the OPAC. Next, the article describes the building of the Alex Catalog, a catalog of Internet resources in the in the form of MARC records. Finally, this article outlines a process of integrating the futher inclusion of other Internet resources into OPACs as well as some of the obstacles such a process manifests.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170

0.014990156 = product of:
  0.03747539 = sum of:
    0.017665926 = weight(_text_:of in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017665926 = score(doc=106,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 106, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=106)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 106) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=106,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 106, 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=106)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Describes the results of research to determine the extent of spelling errors in the State University of New York at Albany's online catalogue, whether these errors seriously affect users' access to library materials and what effect spelling errors will have on the group database planned for the State University of New York (SUNY). Using standard database tests, the catalogues of the four SUNY University Centers (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo and Stony Brook) were studied. In addition, two comparison catalogues were studied: the New York State Library's Excelsior and California University's Melvyl. Results show that misspellings are unavoidable due to the way that most catalogues were built. These errors, however, are rarely an impediment to retrieval. Concludes with suggested ways to find and correct misspellings without expensive large scale efforts

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.014244139 = product of:
  0.035610348 = sum of:
    0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015800884 = score(doc=601,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 601, 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=601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Theses and dissertations as electronic files transferred from the student author to the Graduate School to the Library may well be the first major source of electronic texts that many libraries encounter. To prepare for this potential influx of electronic texts, an ad hoc task force considered work flow and cataloging guidelines. The author suggests expanding current theses cataloging and taking advantage of online information prepared by authors so that the bibliographic records provide OPACS with much more valuable information than does traditional theses cataloging. This should not require a lot of extra work.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.105-125

0.014163372 = product of:
  0.03540843 = sum of:
    0.0127690425 = weight(_text_:of in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0127690425 = score(doc=3053,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3053, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Examines in detail the author cataloguing practices adopted by the Italian National Library Service, as set out in its 1995 Cataloguing Guide (Guida SBN), and discusses how far these practices accord with the standard 1979 RICA author cataloguing rules. Since the author headings prescribed by RICA include personal names, corporate names and titles, this survey looks at all such SBN catalogue entries having an access point function. Presents many examples of standard and variant forms of heading, and reviews control procedures

Date

22. 2.1999 20:40:57

0.013798547 = product of:
  0.034496367 = sum of:
    0.02034675 = weight(_text_:of in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034675 = score(doc=107,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, 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=107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Forty-five years have passed since Lubetzky outlined the primary objectives of the catalog, which should facilitate the identification of specific bibliographic entities, and the explicit recoguition of works and relationships amongthem. Still, our catalogs are better designed to identify specific bibliographic entities than they are to guide users among the network of potential related editions and translations of works. In this paper, we seck to examine qualitatively some interesting examples of families of related works, defined as bibliographic families. Although the cases described here were derived from a random sample, this is a qualitative analysis. We selected these bibliographic families for their ability to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of Leazer's model, which incorporates relationship taxonomies by Tillett and Smiraglia Qualitatice analysis is intended to produce on explanation of a phenomenou, particularly an identification of any palterns observed. Patterns observed in qualitative analysis can be used to affirm external observations of the same phenomena; conclusions can contribute to what is knoton as grounded theory-a unique explanation grounded in the phenomenon under study. We arrive at two statements of grounded theory concerning bibliographic families: cataloger-generated implicit maps among works are inadequate, and qualitative analysis suggests the complexity of even the smallest bibliographic families. We conclude that user behavior study is needed to suggest which alternative maps are preferable.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.013397372 = product of:
  0.03349343 = sum of:
    0.013683967 = weight(_text_:of in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013683967 = score(doc=3656,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 3656, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3656)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3656, 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=3656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Briefly follows the debate concerning: the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the WWW; possible replacement of USMARC format with SGML; and the possible demise of OPACs that do not migrate to the WWW. Discusses the approach taken by the Text encoding Initative (TEI) in their use of a mandatory TEI header in their standard SGML application as the first since CIP to explore attaching bibliographic information to the item itself to assist cataloguing

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.012667385 = product of:
  0.03166846 = sum of:
    0.009029076 = weight(_text_:of in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009029076 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.13821793 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
    0.022639386 = product of:
      0.045278773 = sum of:
        0.045278773 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045278773 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Over the past year, innumerable discussions on the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the newly burgeoning World WideWeb have occured in many libraries and in virtually every library related discussion list. Rumors and speculation abound, some insisting that SGML will replace USMARC "soon," others maintaining that OPACs that haven't migrated to the Web will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103

0.012431653 = product of:
  0.031079132 = sum of:
    0.016929517 = weight(_text_:of in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016929517 = score(doc=605,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
    0.0141496165 = product of:
      0.028299233 = sum of:
        0.028299233 = weight(_text_:22 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028299233 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 605, 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=605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Pays tribute to the recent advances in the ability to access computerized catalogues from the desktop via the Internet but emphasizes that there are problems still to be overcome before the ideal of universal access to catalogue records for UK libraries is achieved. Advances in computerized cataloguing over the past 40 years have been an obstacle to retrospective cataloguing in a coherent and standardized manner which even the adoption of common standards for information retrieval and the Z39.50 protocol have failed to prevent. Many libraries with modern methods for cataloguing new materials still have earlier sequences of records on microfiche or other hard copy format. Other specialized collections are such that they have never been catalogued to professional standards or in a convenient format. Illustrates the point with reference to practical searching of catalogues in Aberystwyth, Wales, and to 2 studies of the logistical and financial issues of a programme of retrospective cataloguing as reported in BLRIC report 53. Discusses the proposed UK coordinating body and coordinated natioanl prgramme, to select which catalogues should be converted, set priorities for work, ensure maintenance of requisite standards, and arrange collaboration between neighbouring or related institutions

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

Source

Journal of librarianship and information science. 29(1997) no.4, S.175-177

0.011145428 = product of:
  0.02786357 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=5973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.019548526 = weight(_text_:of in 5973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019548526 = score(doc=5973,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 5973, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5973)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reports results of 2 separate but related projects to study the influence of spelling errors (misspellings), made by searchers, on the subject searching of online catalogues and to suggest ways of improving error detection systems to handle the errors that they detect. This involved the categorization of user queries for subjects that were extracted from the online catalogue transaction logs of 4 USA university libraries. The research questions considered: the prevalence of misspellings in user queries for subjects; and how users respond to online catalogues that detect possible spelling errors in their subject queries. Less than 6% of user queries that match the catalogue's controlled and free text terms were found to contain spelling errors. While the majority of users corrected misspelled query words, a sizable proportion made an action that was even more detrimental than the original misspelling. Concludes with 3 recommended improvements: online catalogues should be equipped with search trees to place the burden of selecting a subject the system instead of the user; systems should be equipped with automatic spelling checking routines that inform users of possibly misspelled words; and online catalogues should be enhanced with tools and techniques to distinguish between queries that fail due to misspellings and correction failures. Cautions that spelling is not a serious problem but can seriously hinder the most routine subject search

0.010976778 = product of:
  0.027441945 = sum of:
    0.011641062 = product of:
      0.05820531 = sum of:
        0.05820531 = weight(_text_:problem in 362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05820531 = score(doc=362,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 362, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=362)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015800884 = score(doc=362,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 362, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=362)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The information in a manual card catalogue cannot be transformed into a machine-readable file without some cleanup work. Correcting problem records only as they are reported by patrons or discovered by staff, in the course of normal workflow, can mean that incomplete, incorrect or obsolete information is left in the database for long periods of time. A large database editing project, while it requires a major investment of staff time, can clean up the online file and improve patron access in a relatively short time. Suggests a method which focuses on specific types of catalogue records in the library's online system. Such a database editing project represents an investment in the future that more than justifies the time and effort that go into it

0.010976778 = product of:
  0.027441945 = sum of:
    0.011641062 = product of:
      0.05820531 = sum of:
        0.05820531 = weight(_text_:problem in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05820531 = score(doc=700,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.015800884 = weight(_text_:of in 700) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015800884 = score(doc=700,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 700, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=700)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

2nd in a series focusing on the catalogue as an index to the materials in the library collection. Reviews changes in the Middletown University Library, Louisiana, USA, library collection 1987-97. Covers: collection growth, catalogue expansion, and the results of linking databases to the online catalogue. Although integrating electronic databases has helped in solving the problem of the catalogue as an index to the collection it has also created new problems as today's catalogues use records that have not been reviewed by local library staff and add indexing for materials that are not part of the catalogue

0.009055755 = product of:
  0.045278773 = sum of:
    0.045278773 = product of:
      0.090557545 = sum of:
        0.090557545 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090557545 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, 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=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.0056598466 = product of:
  0.028299233 = sum of:
    0.028299233 = product of:
      0.056598466 = sum of:
        0.056598466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056598466 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243

0.0056598466 = product of:
  0.028299233 = sum of:
    0.028299233 = product of:
      0.056598466 = sum of:
        0.056598466 = weight(_text_:22 in 2411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056598466 = score(doc=2411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 4.2020 20:22:29

0.005417446 = product of:
  0.02708723 = sum of:
    0.02708723 = weight(_text_:of in 2535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02708723 = score(doc=2535,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 2535, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2535)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The work of Joint Steering Committee for the Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing rules gave rise to a confernce in Toronto, Canada, in Oct 1997. some contributors elaborated on prepared texts about precise points concerning the evolution of rules in general, and those of the AACR in particular. The evolution of the notion of the catalogue and that of the practice of cataloguing were the focus of contributions and debates at an electronic forum set up specially for the occasion. Synthesizes the topics discussed including: hypertext navigation within the body of catalogues or documents, the creation of metadata included in the electronic documents themselves, the evolution of the notion of authority, and the advent of a set of universal characters permitting liberation from the problems of transliteration

0.0052405605 = product of:
  0.026202802 = sum of:
    0.026202802 = weight(_text_:of in 4618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026202802 = score(doc=4618,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 4618, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4618)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It is assumed that the conceptual structure of bibliographic records is based on the knowledge of user needs. In applying the entity-relationship model to the library catalogue the authority file and bibliographic records can be viewed as attributes, and the links between records and elements as relationships. Outlines the bibliographic relationships of the UNIMARC format, the analysis of hierarchical relationships carried out by Goosens and Mazur-Rzesos, and the typology of bibliographic documents established by McCallum. Presents 7 types of relationships developed by Tillet and gives results of an empirical study carried out to establish the extent and features of bibliographic relationships in the computerized catalogue of the Library of Congress

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: The conceptual structure of the bibliographic record