Search (75 results, page 2 of 4)

0.026674932 = product of:
  0.080024794 = sum of:
    0.080024794 = sum of:
      0.045385253 = weight(_text_:management in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045385253 = score(doc=420,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 420, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=420)
      0.034639545 = weight(_text_:22 in 420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034639545 = score(doc=420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051133685 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 420, 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=420)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The conflict between librarians' ethics and their responsibilities in the process of progressive collection management, which applies the principles of cost accounting to libraries, to call attention to the "bad books" in their collections that are compromised by age, error, abridgement, expurgation, plagiarism, copyright violation, libel, or fraud, is discussed. According to Charles Cutter, notes in catalog records should call attention to the best books but ignore the bad ones. Libraries that can afford to keep their "bad books," however, which often have a valuable second life, must call attention to their intellectual contexts in notes in the catalog records. Michael Bellesiles's Arming America, the most famous case of academic fraud at the turn of the twenty-first century, is used as a test case. Given the bias of content enhancement that automatically pulls content from the Web into library catalogs, catalog notes for "bad books" may be the only way for librarians to uphold their ethical principles regarding collection management while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to their users in calling attention to their "bad books."

Date

27. 9.2012 14:22:00

0.025093256 = product of:
  0.075279765 = sum of:
    0.075279765 = weight(_text_:resources in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.075279765 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.40330917 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library resources and technical services. 26(1982), S.122-135

0.024841055 = product of:
  0.074523166 = sum of:
    0.074523166 = weight(_text_:resources in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.074523166 = score(doc=1173,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.39925572 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Genre/Form headings are an important means by which librarians provide users with contextual or descriptive information. To facilitate the discovery of resources with important provenance characteristics, the Marion E. Wade Center added terms from a controlled vocabulary to bibliographic records representing items in the C. S. Lewis personal library collection. The selected terms focus on features that have historically been of interest to visitors. The addition of these headings in the bibliographic records allows users to use these keywords to conduct a search or narrow their results, resulting in more flexibility to locate and select the resources that best meet their needs.

0.021292333 = product of:
  0.063876994 = sum of:
    0.063876994 = weight(_text_:resources in 377) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063876994 = score(doc=377,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.34221917 = fieldWeight in 377, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=377)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports on the 34th Annual Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, held 2-4 Mar 1997 at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The clinic was entitled 'Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources'. Summarizes the following individual sessions: Visual browsing for information retrieval; Hypostatizing data collections, especially bibliographic; Simultaneous searching of distributed information and subject repositories on the WWW; Information filtering from multiple sources; Thesauri in the full text world; The role of controlled vocabulary in visualizing document associations; Rutgers' investigations of interactive information retrieval; Spatial abilities and visualizations; Using IODyne as an indexing tool; Knowledge structures for information visualizing; Visualizing digital libraries; what role for the OPAC?; How will we provide subject access in the Interspace of the 21st century?; Natural language processing based information retrieval; Building and accessing vocabulary resources for networked resource discovery and navigation; Using electronic services to become an interbetworked business; and Conference Wrap up

0.021292333 = product of:
  0.063876994 = sum of:
    0.063876994 = weight(_text_:resources in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063876994 = score(doc=4442,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.34221917 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper examines differences in modeling component parts of bibliographic resources between two conceptual models in cataloging, as a continuation of the previous study that proposed a model giving primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity. First, the model by IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) was examined from the viewpoint of modeling component parts when each part in itself is a resource to be described. The examination is done on two types of component parts, a content part and a document part, which are different in terms of whether they are physically independent. This results in different structures for these two component types. Secondly, by applying the viewpoint to the model that the author proposed earlier, it has become clear that both component types can be modeled basically in the same manner, indicating the model's superiority in consistency to the FRBR model in this respect.

0.020074604 = product of:
  0.06022381 = sum of:
    0.06022381 = weight(_text_:resources in 5527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06022381 = score(doc=5527,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.32264733 = fieldWeight in 5527, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5527)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

State of the art review of OPACs which suggests a model for their future development based on a redefinition of the roles previously served by the traditional catalogue. Notes the traditional role of library catalogues and considers the ways in which the catalogue's functions can be extended to provide access to the whole of the library 's resources including access to other libraries' collections

0.020074604 = product of:
  0.06022381 = sum of:
    0.06022381 = weight(_text_:resources in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06022381 = score(doc=6686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.32264733 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library resources and technical services. 35(1991), S.150-158

0.020074604 = product of:
  0.06022381 = sum of:
    0.06022381 = weight(_text_:resources in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06022381 = score(doc=6739,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.32264733 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library resources and technical services. 35(1991) no.4, S.393-405

0.020074604 = product of:
  0.06022381 = sum of:
    0.06022381 = weight(_text_:resources in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06022381 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.32264733 = fieldWeight in 3565, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3565)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Bezugnahme auf: Williamson, N.J.: Is there a catalog in your future?: Access to information in the year 2006. In: Library resources and technical services. 26(1982), S.122-135.

0.018474422 = product of:
  0.055423267 = sum of:
    0.055423267 = product of:
      0.110846534 = sum of:
        0.110846534 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110846534 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, 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=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.018474422 = product of:
  0.055423267 = sum of:
    0.055423267 = product of:
      0.110846534 = sum of:
        0.110846534 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.110846534 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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

0.017565278 = product of:
  0.052695833 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=905,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 905, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=905)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Digital documents and Internet access are changing cataloguing practices. MARC formats can accomodate Internet documents by assigning a field for URL but quality control is vital, especially with multimedia catalogues, and new links have to be created. Heterogeneous distant resources can now be searches using the Z39.50 standard, thus enabling access to a wide range of diverse catalogues, and Internet formats are being used to create local systems (intranets). The librarian needs new skills to manipulate digital documents and use information technology tool but the mission is the same: to optimise access to the widest possible range of information

0.017565278 = product of:
  0.052695833 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=502,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 502, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=502)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

When an institution wishes to automate but does not have the financial resources to implement an online integrated system, one solution is to join forces with other libraries who have similar desires and needs. Since the online database is the foundation of all library automation, a shared database will be necessary in this type of cluster environment. This article discusses some of the problems encountered when bibliographic records are shared by a number of libraries, such as difficulties in information retrieval and bibliographic control. Possible methods of dealing with the problems of joint input and database maintenance are then proposed.

0.017565278 = product of:
  0.052695833 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 1929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=1929,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 1929, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1929)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article analyzes the literature concerning uses of notes in bibliographic records and also certain grammatical conventions used by catalogers to communicate information about the resources they are describing. It shows that these types of data do not aid the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) user tasks in the resource discovery process. It also describes how general notes are addressed in Resource Description Access (RDA), and advocates that cataloging practices involving most general notes and such conventions as bracketing and abbreviations should be discontinued with the widespread use of RDA.

0.017565278 = product of:
  0.052695833 = sum of:
    0.052695833 = weight(_text_:resources in 5573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052695833 = score(doc=5573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.28231642 = fieldWeight in 5573, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5573)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.015211977 = product of:
  0.04563593 = sum of:
    0.04563593 = weight(_text_:resources in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04563593 = score(doc=1172,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.24449319 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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.

0.015055953 = product of:
  0.045167856 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=1788,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Library resources and technical services. 42(1998) no.1, S.61-66

0.015055953 = product of:
  0.045167856 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 1230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=1230,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 1230, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1230)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.014194889 = product of:
  0.042584665 = sum of:
    0.042584665 = weight(_text_:resources in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042584665 = score(doc=3876,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.22814612 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.013855817 = product of:
  0.04156745 = sum of:
    0.04156745 = product of:
      0.0831349 = sum of:
        0.0831349 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0831349 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27