Search (129 results, page 3 of 7)

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=2993,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 2993, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There has been a flurry of constructive discussion and debate about the future of cataloging and the catalog, from FRBR and RDA on cataloging rules (with a focus on content) to next-generation discovery interfaces for the catalog (with a focus on carrier). A topic that is not receiving as much attention in the midst of these discussions is the scope of the library catalog. This article offers an opinion on the scope of the catalog in a research library, and the role of the catalogers in this time of transition. The article will also elicit some practical approaches that catalogers can take to reposition the catalog for improved user-access and resource discovery.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 47(2009) no.5, S.409-426

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=1877,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.3/4, S.286-302

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1889) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=1889,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 1889, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1889)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Next-generation catalogs or discovery tools (NGCs) overlay existing bibliographic data and repackage it in displays that differ from the traditional catalog. Many implementations of NGCs have revealed errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the underlying data that had not been apparent in the traditional catalog. This study explored the effect of NGCs on cataloging functions and catalogers in academic libraries, examining catalogers' participation in the selection and implementation processes, identifying and correcting data problems, changes to procedures or workflow, and staffing.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 49(2011) no.3, S.179-207

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=1891,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Kent State University Libraries' ETD cataloging process features contributions by authors, by the ETDcat application, and by catalogers. Who is doing what, and how much of it is findable in the library catalog? An empirical analysis is performed featuring simple frequencies within the KentLINK catalog, articulated by the use of a newly devised rubric. The researchers sought the degree to which the ETD authors, the applications, and the catalogers can supply accurate, findable metadata. Further development of combinatory cataloging processes is suggested. The method of examining the data and the rubric are provided as a framework for other metadata analysis.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 49(2011) no.4, S.277-310

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=518,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 518, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 604) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=604,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 604, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=604)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 2(1982) nos.1/2, S.45-55

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=5481,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 5481, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent attempts to assess the adequacy of AACR as a descriptive cataloging code for the online environment have focused attention on cataloging principles. This paper looks at some old and new attempts to isolate the fundamental principles underlying AACR. It considers catalog objectives, principles, and rules and looks at how these relate to one another. It analyzes the relationship of these principles and rules to the final product, the library catalog, pointing out differences (in this regard) between catalogs that are paper-based and those that are electronic. Finally, it comments on the present effort of the Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR to formulate a statement of principles to be included in a new introduction to AACR.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification; Part I

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2002) nos.1/2, S.37-59

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 2(1982) nos.1/2, S.1-2

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 283) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=283,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 283, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=283)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 2(1982) nos.1/2, S.57-68

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 284) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=284,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 284, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=284)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 2(1982) nos.1/2, S.3-19

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 2(1982) nos.1/2, S.21-44

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 2(1982) nos.1/2, S.69-81

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=288,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 2(1982) nos.1/2, S.83-91

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 2(1982) nos.1/2, S.93-101

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=504,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 504, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 12(1990) no.2, S.63-81

0.025122147 = product of:
  0.050244294 = sum of:
    0.050244294 = product of:
      0.10048859 = sum of:
        0.10048859 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10048859 = score(doc=1892,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Is there a future for the library cataloger? For the past thirty years this debate has increased with the continued growth of online resources and greater access to the World Wide Web. Many are concerned that library administrators believe budgetary resources would be better spent on other matters, leaving library users with an overabundance of electronic information to muddle through on their own. This article focuses on the future of the cataloging profession and its importance to the needs of library patrons.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 49(2011) no.4, S.323-327

0.024826001 = product of:
  0.049652003 = sum of:
    0.049652003 = product of:
      0.099304006 = sum of:
        0.099304006 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099304006 = score(doc=789,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.48683268 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2008) no.3, S.25-37

0.023315303 = product of:
  0.046630606 = sum of:
    0.046630606 = product of:
      0.09326121 = sum of:
        0.09326121 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09326121 = score(doc=1172,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.4572082 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.023076165 = product of:
  0.04615233 = sum of:
    0.04615233 = product of:
      0.09230466 = sum of:
        0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09230466 = score(doc=4463,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper proposes a conceptual model for cataloging which gives primacy to expression-level bibliographic entity, with the aim of approaching critical issues in cataloging, such as the so-called "format variations" and "content versus carrier" issues. The term "expression" is defined as "the intellectual or artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or choreographic notation, etc." In this paper, the model by the IFLA Study Group on Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) is first re-examined and at the same time the outline of a new model giving primacy to expression-level entity is illustrated by indicating differences from the FRBR model. Second, by applying the concept "user tasks," found in the FRBR model, to the new model outlined in this paper, a scenario on how entities are used by users is created. Third, some examples of bibliographic record equivalents in line with the new model are shown.

0.023076165 = product of:
  0.04615233 = sum of:
    0.04615233 = product of:
      0.09230466 = sum of:
        0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09230466 = score(doc=2724,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Approaches to the measurement of catalog record quality are discussed. The systematic application of specific evaluation criteria may be more reliable than expert opinion, if not necessarily more accurate, and the construction of an error weightings table based on empirical investigation into catalog use is described. Although this process proved to be complex, and involved significant methodological problems, it was shown to be readily achievable. As catalog use may in many cases be insufficiently uniform across libraries to allow for generic evaluation criteria, it is proposed that cataloging managers construct their own set by studying the impact that record quality has on the particular use of their own catalogs. Thus more empirical research into catalog use is advocated, in order to supplement expert opinion and to build toward a practice of evidence-based cataloging.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 46(2008) no.4, S.338-361