Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.002998238 = product of:
  0.04197533 = sum of:
    0.04197533 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04197533 = score(doc=3871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.105508775 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025375739 = queryNorm
        0.39783734 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.002533318 = product of:
  0.03546645 = sum of:
    0.03546645 = weight(_text_:bedeutung in 1831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03546645 = score(doc=1831,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1276382 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.0299306 = idf(docFreq=785, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025375739 = queryNorm
        0.27786705 = fieldWeight in 1831, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.0299306 = idf(docFreq=785, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1831)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

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.

0.0013848268 = product of:
  0.019387575 = sum of:
    0.019387575 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019387575 = score(doc=2429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.105508775 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025375739 = queryNorm
        0.18375319 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Our catalog should not be called a FRBR catalog perhaps, but instead a "FRBR Inspired catalog." As such our main goal has been "practical findability," we are seeking to support the four identified user tasks of the FRBR model, or to "Search, Identify, Select, and Obtain," rather than to create a FRBR catalog, per se. By encoding as much information as possible in the MODS and MADS records we have created, we believe that useful searching will be supported, that by using unique identifiers for works and authors users will be able to identify that the entity they have located is the desired one, that by encoding expression level information (such as the language of the work, the translator, etc) users will be able to select which expression of a work they are interested in, and that by supplying links to different online manifestations that users will be able to obtain access to a digital copy of a work. This white paper will discuss previous and current efforts by the Perseus Project in creating a FRBRized catalog, including the cataloging workflow, lessons learned during the process and will also seek to place this work in the larger context of research regarding FRBR, cataloging, Library 2.0 and the Semantic Web, and the growing importance of the FRBR model in the face of growing million book digital libraries.

3.5742985E-4 = product of:
  0.0050040176 = sum of:
    0.0050040176 = product of:
      0.02001607 = sum of:
        0.02001607 = weight(_text_:j in 3225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02001607 = score(doc=3225,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.080631316 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025375739 = queryNorm
            0.2482419 = fieldWeight in 3225, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3225)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

3.032893E-4 = product of:
  0.00424605 = sum of:
    0.00424605 = product of:
      0.0169842 = sum of:
        0.0169842 = weight(_text_:j in 2882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0169842 = score(doc=2882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.080631316 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025375739 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 2882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2882)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

2.527411E-4 = product of:
  0.003538375 = sum of:
    0.003538375 = product of:
      0.0141535 = sum of:
        0.0141535 = weight(_text_:j in 4001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0141535 = score(doc=4001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.080631316 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025375739 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 4001, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4001)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)