Search (273 results, page 14 of 14)

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 2973, 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=2973)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article discusses the changes that are occurring in the world of cataloguing. It argues that these changes need to be coordinated. It also discusses the feature of current OPACs, FRBR, the Paris Principles and its proposed replacement (ICP), AACR2 and its proposed replacement (RDA), ISBD, and the relationships between and among these standards. It argues that the syntax of ISBD is an essential component of RDA and all future international and national cataloguing codes.

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 2016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=2016,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 2016, 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=2016)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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)

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 5157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=5157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 5157, 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=5157)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=5277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 5277, 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=5277)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Shifting library catalogs from physical to digital has come at a cost. Catalog records no longer leave traces of their own evolution, which is a loss for librarianship. The subjective nature of information classification warrants self-examination, within which we may see the evolution of practice, debates over attribution and relevance, and how culture is reflected in the systems used to describe it. Wikipedia models what is possible: revision histories and discussion pages function as knowledge generators. A list of unanswerable questions for the modern catalog urges us to construct a new, forward-thinking bibliography that allows us to look backward.

0.0010411602 = product of:
  0.006246961 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 5573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=5573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 5573, 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=5573)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Although academic libraries are increasingly converting stacks into collaborative spaces and physical books and journals are being replaced by their electronic counterparts, the concept of browsing as a means of discovery is seeing a resurgence in the world of search and discovery. While many users start their online research with electronic databases and library catalogues, interviews with North Carolina State University Libraries patrons provide evidence that physically browsing the shelves to find similar materials is still common. A growing awareness of the need to preserve this type of serendipitous discovery as a complement to keyword searching is inspiring the development of online virtual browsing tools that replace and enhance physical access to library stacks.

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 8192) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=8192,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 8192, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8192)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Contends that library catalogues need to be seen as merely part of the information seeker's world and proposes the concept of a learning catalogue for library clients which will capture ways in which clients use data thus providing ideas for the further development of the system. Proposes a client centred system which is separated to maintain the bibliographic database from the mode of presentation of that data to the client. The designer of retrieval systems, by accepting that each client brings a unique view of the world's knowledge base to the information seeking activity, needs to acknowledge that this view of the world must be handled uniquely. By overlaying the idea of a learning component, it is possible to see how future queries might be handled more efficiently and the system can grow with client's developing needs

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 4624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=4624,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 4624, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4624)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The foundations of the card catalogue, catalogue use studies what can be conjectured about user needs suggest that future catalogues, as they are made possible throught the manipulations of computerized bibliographic records, ought not to take a single format. The concept of the main entry will no longer be valid at this point and multiple access points will be possible. Machine based systems will allow librarians to construct a series of catalogues to meet user needs. Proposes that there might be 3 catalogue levels of varying form and size to meet the needs of different levels of use and types of users: librarian's catalogue with full details; general user's catalogue, a location tool; and individual user's catalogue, full records in particular fields. Users could add their own material to their own catalogues and SDI via a message device would be possible

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 5430) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=5430,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 5430, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5430)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Preparing for new cataloging such as metadata beyond MARC and thesauri beyond LCSH, is an exciting and daunting challenge for university libraries. Advancing technologies, as well as a growing demand for quality information with rapid access is fueling the need for technical services departments to restructure their work to accommodate the evolving world of information management. Catalogers who have been following the same procedures and practices for many years may find this change particularly difficult. Team leaders are often faced with breaking through skepticism and resistance to this new work in order to enable necessary progress. We found that discussions and gradual introduction of new directions is important to acceptance by team members. However, just as important is the implementation of an action plan to ensure that progress is ongoing. Reengineering Acquisitions and Cataloging into Current Processes and Information Management Initiatives, along with forming several focus groups to investigate and evaluate cataloging work, is proving successful for embracing new cataloging at Tufts University.

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=504,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The work begins by reviewing publications on the use of optical-disc technology in cataloging departments. This section includes descriptive information on specific products and comparative considerations on the value of the CD genre. Most commentary to date seems to find cost advantages to the optical format for smaller libraries but fewer attractions for larger institutions who would lose online immediacy. An outline of the design and results of the OCLC test follows along with various tables showing the class makeup of the overall sample, the hit-rate for the two vendors, and other data. Most of the sample consisted of English-language titles that would support the general academic mission of a variety of disciplines. Well over 90% of the titles searched had MARC records on discs within two issues or three months. Although concluding that departments acquiring over 5000 titles per year may find online utilities more effective, the article still urges a careful analysis of laser cataloging products with a variety of acquisition samples and for a variety of libraries.

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 2006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=2006,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2006, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2006)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Reshaping the Library Catalog: Selected Papers from the International Conference FSR2014 (Rome, February 27-28, 2014).

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 1861) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=1861,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 1861, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1861)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Many small libraries do not have the resources to build a holdings database but the availability of affordable scanners and improved OCR software has made possible a new approach for creating online databases. Describes the work undertaken at the Otto Hahn Library of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Germany, to create a database consisting of the titles, bibliographic descriptions and contents tables of books acquired by the library. The book information and table of contents pages are scanned and converted to text using OCR software. A computer program is used to extract as much information as possible, in particular from the CIP data with corrections and missing information being supplied manually. Finally, the information, which consists of: title; author; ISBN; publication year; call number; series; language; and other relevant information for books, as well as the entire table of contents, is stored and added to an Ovid database using the Ovid Local Loader software. Pays particular attention to the algorithm used to extract specific information from the CIP data. 2 OCR software packeges have been tested: OmniPage Pro 7.0 and FineReader 3.0. Experience has shown that FineReader is better at character recognition and retains the formatting better but OmniPage Pro is easier to train to recognize special characters

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 5565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=5565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 5565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5565)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogues are providing opportunities for library professionals and users to interact, collaborate, and enhance core library functions. Technology, innovation, and creativity are all components that are merging to create a localized, online social space that brings our physical library services and experiences into an online environment. While patrons are comfortable creating user-generated information on commercial Web sites and social media Web sites, library professionals should be exploring alternative methods of use for these tools within the library setting. Can the library catalogue promote remote readers' advisory services and act as a localized "Google"? Will patrons or library professionals be the driving force behind user-generated content within our catalogues? How can cataloguers be sure that the integrity of their bibliographic records is protected while inviting additional data sources to display in our catalogues? As library catalogues bring our physical library services into the online environment, catalogues also begin to encroach or "mash-up" with other areas of librarianship that have not been part of a cataloguer's expertise. Using library catalogues beyond their traditional role as tools for discovery and access raises issues surrounding the expertise of library professionals and the benefits of collaboration between frontline and backroom staff.