Search (176 results, page 2 of 9)

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 6333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=6333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 6333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 1(1999) no.4, S.53-58

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=4102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 4102, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.1, S.17-20

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5722) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=5722,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 5722, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5722)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Dublin Core is an international standard for describing and cataloging all kinds of information resources: books, articles, videos, and World Wide Web (web) resources. Sixteen Dublin Core (DC) elements and the steps for cataloging web resources using these elements and minimal controlled values are discussed, general guidelines for metadata creation are highlighted, a worksheet is provided to create the DC metadata records for the library catalog, and sample resource descriptions in DC are included.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 40(2005) nos.3/4, S.153-181

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=5802,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 5802, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5802)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to gauge the cataloging practices within the public library sector seen from the catalog with Norway as a case, based on a sample of records from public libraries and cataloging agencies. Findings suggest that libraries make few changes to records they import from central agencies, and that larger libraries make more changes than smaller libraries. Findings also suggest that libraries catalog and modify records with their patrons in mind, and though the extent is not large, cataloging proficiency is still required in the public library domain, at least in larger libraries, in order to ensure correct and consistent metadata.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 58(2020) no.2, S.127-148

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=735,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 735, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata creation is the process of recording metadata, that is data essential to the identification and retrieval of any type of resource, including bibliographic resources. Metadata capable of identifying characteristics of an entity have always existed. However, the triggering event that has rewritten and enhanced their value is the digital revolution. Cataloging is configured as an action of creating metadata. While cataloging produces a catalog, that is a list of records relating to various types of resources, ordered and searchable, according to a defined criterion, the metadata process produces the metadata of the resources.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.5, p.411-423

0.03076822 = product of:
  0.06153644 = sum of:
    0.06153644 = product of:
      0.12307288 = sum of:
        0.12307288 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12307288 = score(doc=5513,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6033583 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Provides an introductory overview to the subject of metadata, which considers why metadata issues are central to discussions about the evolution of library services-particularly digital library services-and why the cataloging community is, and should be, front and center in those discussions.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Electronic cataloging: AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 36(2003) nos.3/4, S.19-29

0.029750803 = product of:
  0.059501607 = sum of:
    0.059501607 = product of:
      0.119003214 = sum of:
        0.119003214 = weight(_text_:22 in 5743) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.119003214 = score(doc=5743,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 5743, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5743)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 3.2002 19:45:22

Source

Revista Española de Documentaçion Cientifica. 22(1999) no.2, S.198-219

0.028049326 = product of:
  0.05609865 = sum of:
    0.05609865 = product of:
      0.1121973 = sum of:
        0.1121973 = weight(_text_:22 in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1121973 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4899, 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=4899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

16. 7.2000 20:58:22

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=4160,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 4160, 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=4160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The University of Oklahoma Libraries recently undertook a project designed to integrate digital library metadata creation into the workflow of the Cataloging Department. This article examines the conditions and factors that led to the project's genesis, the proposed and revised workflows that were developed, the staff training efforts that accompanied implementation of the project, and the results and benefits obtained through the project's implementation. The project presented several challenges but resulted in an improved workflow, greater use of Cataloging Department resources, and more accurate and useful metadata while increasing the Library's capacity to support digitization efforts in a timely fashion.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) nos.6/7, S.541-550

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

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=1963,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 1963, 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=1963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The National Library of Latvia (NLL) made a decision to use the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in 2000. At present the NLL Subject Headings Database in Latvian holds approximately 34,000 subject headings and is used for subject cataloging of textual resources, including articles from serials. For digital objects NLL uses a system like Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST). We succesfully use it in the project "In Search of Lost Latvia," one of the milestones in the development of the subject cataloging of digital resources in Latvia.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.20-31

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=5133,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 5133, 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=5133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents a case study of quality management for print and electronic resource metadata, summarizing problems and solutions encountered by the Cataloging and Discovery Services Department in the George A. Smathers Libraries at the University of Florida. The authors discuss national, state, and local standards for cataloging, automated and manual record enhancements for data, user feedback, and statewide consortial factors. Findings show that adherence to standards, proactive cleanup of data via manual processes and automated tools, collaboration with vendors and stakeholders, and continual assessment of workflows are key to the management of biblio-graphic data quality in consortial academic libraries.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.7, S.452-467

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=5140,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 5140, 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=5140)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

French law on digital legal deposit covers websites and online content as well as ebooks. It imposes no obligation to produce a bibliography, indexing being sufficient. But despite their innovative characteristics, ebooks are still books, and their metadata is closer to that of printed materials than to the web indexing. To set up an ebook deposit workflow, the BnF benefits from its experience with digital documents and its tradition of legal deposit. This is to present the questions that it faces when dealing with the cataloging of ebooks and the management of their metadata, and the solutions that are emerging.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 54(2016) no.8, S.583-592

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=5731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 5731, 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=5731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 40(2005) nos.3/4, S.1-15

0.025122147 = product of:
  0.050244294 = sum of:
    0.050244294 = product of:
      0.10048859 = sum of:
        0.10048859 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10048859 = score(doc=5504,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 5504, 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=5504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Electronic cataloging: AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 36(2003) nos.3/4, S.31-46

0.025122147 = product of:
  0.050244294 = sum of:
    0.050244294 = product of:
      0.10048859 = sum of:
        0.10048859 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10048859 = score(doc=5142,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 5142, 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=5142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2015, the Cataloging and Metadata Services department of Rice University's Fondren Library developed a process to reconcile four years of authority headings against an internally developed thesaurus. With a goal of immediate cleanup as well as an ongoing maintenance procedure, staff developed a "hack" of OpenRefine's normal Reconciliation function that ultimately yielded 99.6% authority reconciliation and a stable process for monthly data verification.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.1, S.1-11

0.024826001 = product of:
  0.049652003 = sum of:
    0.049652003 = product of:
      0.099304006 = sum of:
        0.099304006 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099304006 = score(doc=677,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.48683268 = fieldWeight in 677, 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=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.

0.024543159 = product of:
  0.049086317 = sum of:
    0.049086317 = product of:
      0.098172635 = sum of:
        0.098172635 = weight(_text_:22 in 4407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098172635 = score(doc=4407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4407, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

28. 3.2002 9:22:34

0.023076165 = product of:
  0.04615233 = sum of:
    0.04615233 = product of:
      0.09230466 = sum of:
        0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4055) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09230466 = score(doc=4055,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 4055, 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=4055)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This project's goal is to develop a catalog for a digitized collection of historical fashion objects held at the Kent State University Museum and to analyze and evaluate how well existing metadata formats can be applied to a fashion collection. The project considered the known and anticipated uses of the collection and the identification of the metadata elements that would be needed to support these uses. From a set of 90 museum accession records, 42 fashion objects were selected for cataloging. 2 metadata treatments were created for these 42 items using (a) AACR in use with USMARC formats, (b) the Dublic Core set of elements designed for minimal level cataloging, and (c) the Visual Resources Association (VRA) Core Categories for Visual Resources created for developing local databases and cataloging records for visual resource collections. Comparison and analysis of the formats resulted in the adoption of a modified VRA metadata format to catalog the entire digitized historical fashion collection

0.023076165 = product of:
  0.04615233 = sum of:
    0.04615233 = product of:
      0.09230466 = sum of:
        0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09230466 = score(doc=5508,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 5508, 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=5508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Changes in the environment in which the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2), currently operates are examined, including the growth in electronic publishing and use of the Internet, and the development and increasing use of a range of other metadata standards, such as the Dublin Core. AACR2 and other metadata standards, particularly the Dublin Core, are compared. It is argued that AACR2 should continue to be used for describing selected Web-based resources. Criteria for deciding whether to use AACR2 or another metadata standard are defined, drawing on the experiences of two Brisbane universities in developing mechanisms for providing access to electronic resources. Five options are evaluated: catalog only (direct entry); catalog only (indirect entry); subject gateway only; catalog and subject gateway combined; and shared databases, such as CORC. The option chosen by the two universities is identified and explained. Revisions to the rules in AACR2 for cataloging electronic resources resulting from decisions made through 2000 are described. Possible future revisions are also explored.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft "Electronic cataloging: AACR2 and metadata for serials and monographs"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 36(2003) nos.3/4, S.87-100