Search (184 results, page 1 of 10)

0.15557711 = product of:
  0.20743614 = sum of:
    0.12250038 = weight(_text_:digital in 5515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12250038 = score(doc=5515,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.5283983 = fieldWeight in 5515, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5515)
    0.04444293 = weight(_text_:library in 5515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04444293 = score(doc=5515,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 5515, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5515)
    0.04049284 = product of:
      0.08098568 = sum of:
        0.08098568 = weight(_text_:project in 5515) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08098568 = score(doc=5515,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24808002 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 5515, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5515)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This article summarizes the main aspects of the strategy created as the result of the project to integrate printed catalogs into Cuban digital library spaces and the internet in general. It also describes the status of the initiative and offers reflections on the relationship between the ongoing parallel development of online catalogs, digital libraries, and digital repositories of cultural patrimony, highlighting opportunities to make use of linked data techniques for these purposes.

Source

Library trends. 67(2019) no.4, S.713-728

0.13871768 = product of:
  0.18495691 = sum of:
    0.10002114 = weight(_text_:digital in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10002114 = score(doc=1182,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.43143538 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
    0.04444293 = weight(_text_:library in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04444293 = score(doc=1182,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
    0.04049284 = product of:
      0.08098568 = sum of:
        0.08098568 = weight(_text_:project in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08098568 = score(doc=1182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24808002 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Significant changes in how video games are made and distributed require catalogers to critically reflect on existing approaches for representing games in library catalogs. Digital distribution channels are quickly supplanting releases of games on physical media while also facilitating a dramatic increase in independent-made games that incorporate novel subject matter and styles of gameplay. This paper presents an action research project cataloging 18 independently-made digital games from a small publisher, Choice of Games, considering how descriptive cataloging, subject cataloging, and name authority control for these works compares to mainstream video games.

0.13793343 = product of:
  0.18391123 = sum of:
    0.06062197 = weight(_text_:digital in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06062197 = score(doc=1173,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.053872965 = weight(_text_:library in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053872965 = score(doc=1173,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
    0.0694163 = product of:
      0.1388326 = sum of:
        0.1388326 = weight(_text_:project in 1173) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1388326 = score(doc=1173,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24808002 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.5596283 = fieldWeight in 1173, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1173)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Popular commercial on-line services such as Google, e-Bay, Amazon, and Netflix have evolved quickly over the last decade to help people find what they want, developing information retrieval strategies such as usefully ranked results, spelling correction, and recommender systems. Online library catalogs (OPACs), in contrast, have changed little and are notoriously difficult for patrons to use (University of California Libraries, 2005). Over the past year (June 2005 to the present), the Melvyl Recommender Project (California Digital Library, 2005) has been exploring methods and feasibility of closing the gap between features that library patrons want and have come to expect from information retrieval systems and what libraries are currently equipped to deliver. The project team conducted exploratory work in five topic areas: relevance ranking, auto-correction, use of a text-based discovery system, user interface strategies, and recommending. This article focuses specifically on the recommending portion of the project and potential extensions to that work.

0.119487986 = product of:
  0.15931731 = sum of:
    0.10002114 = weight(_text_:digital in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10002114 = score(doc=600,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.43143538 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
    0.031425897 = weight(_text_:library in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031425897 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
    0.027870288 = product of:
      0.055740576 = sum of:
        0.055740576 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055740576 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20581327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = 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)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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

0.11477037 = product of:
  0.15302716 = sum of:
    0.07072563 = weight(_text_:digital in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07072563 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.054431252 = weight(_text_:library in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054431252 = score(doc=114,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
    0.027870288 = product of:
      0.055740576 = sum of:
        0.055740576 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055740576 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20581327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Footnote

Vgl. auch: http://www.loc.gov/library/reports/CatalogingSpeech.pdf.

Source

Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.1, S.xx-xx

0.10397902 = product of:
  0.13863869 = sum of:
    0.07000022 = weight(_text_:digital in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07000022 = score(doc=2429,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.30194187 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.03591531 = weight(_text_:library in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03591531 = score(doc=2429,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
    0.03272316 = product of:
      0.06544632 = sum of:
        0.06544632 = weight(_text_:project in 2429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06544632 = score(doc=2429,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24808002 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 2429, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2429)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

If one follows any of the major cataloging or library blogs these days, it is obvious that the topic of FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) has increasingly become one of major significance for the library community. What began as a proposed conceptual entity-relationship model for improving the structure of bibliographic records has become a hotly debated topic with many tangled threads that have implications not just for cataloging but for many aspects of libraries and librarianship. In the fall of 2005, the Perseus Project experimented with creating a FRBRized catalog for its current online classics collection, a collection that consists of several hundred classical texts in Greek and Latin as well as reference works and scholarly commentaries regarding these works. In the last two years, with funding from the Mellon Foundation, Perseus has amassed and digitized a growing collection of classical texts (some as image books on our own servers that will eventually be made available through Fedora), and some available through the Open Content Alliance (OCA)2, and created FRBRized cataloging data for these texts. This work was done largely as an experiment to see the potential of the FRBR model for creating a specialized catalog for classics.
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.

0.08666774 = product of:
  0.115556985 = sum of:
    0.021401703 = product of:
      0.06420511 = sum of:
        0.06420511 = weight(_text_:objects in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06420511 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31238306 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.20553327 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.035362814 = weight(_text_:digital in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035362814 = score(doc=1172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.15253544 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
    0.058792472 = weight(_text_:library in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058792472 = score(doc=1172,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.38044354 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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.

0.0825509 = product of:
  0.1651018 = sum of:
    0.11430988 = weight(_text_:digital in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11430988 = score(doc=2584,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.493069 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
    0.05079192 = weight(_text_:library in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05079192 = score(doc=2584,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.32867232 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Observes how traditional cataloguing differs from the use of metadata to describe the materials in a digital library. Introduces the 3 categories of metadata that have been identified: descriptive (also called intellectual), structural, and administrative. Notes that MARC only deals well with intellectual metadata. Discusses some emerging standards that may be to digital libraries what MARC was to print libraries, the best of these being the Dublin Core

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.7, S.30-31

0.075112596 = product of:
  0.15022519 = sum of:
    0.11430988 = weight(_text_:digital in 3982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11430988 = score(doc=3982,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.493069 = fieldWeight in 3982, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3982)
    0.03591531 = weight(_text_:library in 3982) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03591531 = score(doc=3982,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 3982, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3982)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Der Text zeigt anhand einer essayistisch selektiven Rückschau in die Zeit vor den Digital Humanities bibliotheks- und informationswissenschaftliche Ansätze zur Entwicklung hypertextueller Werkzeuge für Bibliographie-Verwaltung und Strukturierung des wissenschaftlichen Diskurses - eine zukunftsweisende Idee für eine digitale Geisteswissenschaft zur Unterstützung geisteswissenschaftlicher Denkarbeit jenseits von reinem 'distant thinking'.

Content

Beitrag in einerm Schwerpunkt "Post-Digital Humanities". Vgl.: http://libreas.eu/ausgabe30/frank/.

Source

LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.30, 2016

0.075112596 = product of:
  0.15022519 = sum of:
    0.11430988 = weight(_text_:digital in 4868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11430988 = score(doc=4868,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.493069 = fieldWeight in 4868, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4868)
    0.03591531 = weight(_text_:library in 4868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03591531 = score(doc=4868,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4868, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4868)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

0.06776707 = product of:
  0.13553414 = sum of:
    0.07183062 = weight(_text_:library in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07183062 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
    0.063703515 = product of:
      0.12740703 = sum of:
        0.12740703 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12740703 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20581327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

Source

Library research. 1(1979), S.199-222

0.06776707 = product of:
  0.13553414 = sum of:
    0.07183062 = weight(_text_:library in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07183062 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
    0.063703515 = product of:
      0.12740703 = sum of:
        0.12740703 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12740703 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20581327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

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

0.066193886 = product of:
  0.13238777 = sum of:
    0.08573241 = weight(_text_:digital in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08573241 = score(doc=5012,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.36980176 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
    0.04665536 = weight(_text_:library in 5012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04665536 = score(doc=5012,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.30190483 = fieldWeight in 5012, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5012)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

According to the Calhoun report, library operations that are not digital, that do not result in resources that are remotely accessible, that involve professional human judgement or expertise, or that require conceptual categorization and standardization rather than relevance ranking of keywords, do not fit into its proposed "leadership" strategy. This strategy itself, however, is based on an inappropriate business model - and a misrepresentation of that business model to begin with. The Calhoun report draws unjustified conclusions about the digital age, inflates wishful thinking, fails to make critical distinctions, and disregards (as well as mischaracterizes) an alternative "niche" strategy for research libraries, to promote scholarship (rather than increase "market position"). Its recommendations to eliminate Library of Congress Subject Headings, and to use "fast turnaround" time as the "gold standard" in cataloging, are particularly unjustified, and would have serious negative consequences for the capacity of research libraries to promote scholarly research.

0.058356874 = product of:
  0.11671375 = sum of:
    0.05715494 = weight(_text_:digital in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05715494 = score(doc=5013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
    0.059558805 = weight(_text_:library in 5013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059558805 = score(doc=5013,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.38540247 = fieldWeight in 5013, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5013)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The destabilizing influences of the Web, widespread ownership of personal computers, and rising computer literacy have created an era of discontinuous change in research libraries a time when the cumulated assets of the past do not guarantee future success. The library catalog is such an asset. Today, a large and growing number of students and scholars routinely bypass library catalogs in favor of other discovery tools, and the catalog represents a shrinking proportion of the universe of scholarly information. The catalog is in decline, its processes and structures are unsustainable, and change needs to be swift. At the same time, books and serials are not dead, and they are not yet digital. Notwithstanding widespread expansion of digitization projects, ubiquitous e-journals, and a market that seems poised to move to e-books, the role of catalog records in discovery and retrieval of the world's library collections seems likely to continue for at least a couple of decades and probably longer. This report, commissioned by the Library of Congress (LC), offers an analysis of the current situation, options for revitalizing research library catalogs, a feasibility assessment, a vision for change, and a blueprint for action. Library decision makers are the primary audience for this report, whose aim is to elicit support, dialogue, collaboration, and movement toward solutions. Readers from the business community, particularly those that directly serve libraries, may find the report helpful for defining research and development efforts. The same is true for readers from membership organizations such as OCLC Online Computer Library Center, the Research Libraries Group, the Association for Research Libraries, the Council on Library and Information Resources, the Coalition for Networked Information, and the Digital Library Federation. Library managers and practitioners from all functional groups are likely to take an interest in the interview findings and in specific actions laid out in the blueprint.

0.058168903 = product of:
  0.116337806 = sum of:
    0.07144367 = weight(_text_:digital in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07144367 = score(doc=2525,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.3081681 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
    0.044894136 = weight(_text_:library in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044894136 = score(doc=2525,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.

0.05758428 = product of:
  0.11516856 = sum of:
    0.07072563 = weight(_text_:digital in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07072563 = score(doc=5277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 5277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5277)
    0.04444293 = weight(_text_:library in 5277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04444293 = score(doc=5277,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 5277, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5277)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

0.05722521 = product of:
  0.07630028 = sum of:
    0.024459092 = product of:
      0.073377274 = sum of:
        0.073377274 = weight(_text_:objects in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073377274 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31238306 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.03591531 = weight(_text_:library in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03591531 = score(doc=2647,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.015925879 = product of:
      0.031851757 = sum of:
        0.031851757 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031851757 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20581327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.

Content

1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22

0.056764517 = product of:
  0.113529034 = sum of:
    0.042803407 = product of:
      0.12841022 = sum of:
        0.12841022 = weight(_text_:objects in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12841022 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31238306 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.07072563 = weight(_text_:digital in 786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07072563 = score(doc=786,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 786, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=786)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses the professional and intellectual appeals demonstrated by cataloging students, as well as some common misconceptions. Given the current digital environment and the "Amazoogle" effect, students face many challenges when striving to complete a basic course in descriptive and subject cataloging. In the process, they face issues of varieties of information objects, how to tame tools such as AACR2 and LCSH, and how MARC encoding fits into the overall process of cataloging. They also must learn to re-conceptualize their ideas of copy cataloging and learn to appreciate the authoritative power that comes with using and applying cataloger's judgment.

0.05643826 = product of:
  0.11287652 = sum of:
    0.036688637 = product of:
      0.11006591 = sum of:
        0.11006591 = weight(_text_:objects in 5556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11006591 = score(doc=5556,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31238306 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05877307 = queryNorm
            0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 5556, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5556)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.07618788 = weight(_text_:library in 5556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07618788 = score(doc=5556,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.4930085 = fieldWeight in 5556, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5556)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The specter of impending change in library catalogues is strong but not very clear. In an attempt to help the clarification process, the first part of the present report discusses historical themes from the modern library catalogue legacy that has developed since the mid-nineteenth century-the origins and subsequent dominance of the dictionary catalogue for more than a century, considerations of library catalogue users and use over the same period, developments apart from the library catalogue during the twentieth century that have affected it, and aspects of the idea of the objects of a catalogue. In a second part, the general environment for the most recent period of library catalogue development is described, after which aspects of the historical legacy are used as a basis for raising questions relevant to impending library catalogue change.

Source

Library trends. 61(2012) no.1, S.7-34

0.051075764 = product of:
  0.10215153 = sum of:
    0.07072563 = weight(_text_:digital in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07072563 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23183343 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
    0.031425897 = weight(_text_:library in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031425897 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15453665 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05877307 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Without reform and adaptation to contemporary technology, existing paper libraries may become increasingly marginalized and eventually little more than book museums. Proposes a new method to organize access to paper resources by using relational database management systems technology to change libraries' existing data structures and concepts of organization of materials in order to create an open, shared, easy-to-use and cooperatively maintained system. Without substantial proactive change, users familiar with accessing and manipulating digital materials will become very intolerant of the anomalies and archaisms of libraries' card-based automated catalogues. Outlines the benefits of such a system and lists considerations which should be taken into account in its design