Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Bowman, J.H.: Changing cataloging rules in relation to changing patterns of publication (1996) 0.02

0.022235535 = product of:
  0.04447107 = sum of:
    0.04447107 = sum of:
      0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 6521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007030784 = score(doc=6521,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 6521, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6521)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 6521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=6521,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6521, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6521)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract: Examines changes in the rules for cataloguing certein categories of printed material, anonymous works, including: those described as being 'by the author of' another named work; pseudonymous works; edited works (collections of writings of several authors); and conference proceedings. Discusses the relevant rules from the British Museum, the 1908 joint code, the Bodleian, Cambridge University Library and AACR2, Samples of London publications taken in specimen years between 1841 and 1991 show that there has been a decrease in anonymous works and in works with personal authors, offset by a sharp increase in multiple authorship, edited works and conference proceedings. Concludes that these changes have taken place in response to external forces. Some changes have been because the rules have been found to be unworkable or based on unnecessary or false distinctions which were impossible for the cataloguer to interpret
Source: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.29-50
Type: a

Bowman, J.H.: ¬The development of description in cataloguing prior to ISBD (2006) 0.00
```
0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=659,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to compare Anglo-American cataloguing codes and practices for description over the past 150 years and assess the contribution that they made to International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD). Design/methodology/approach - The major international codes, and those of major British libraries, are examined point by point, using as a basis the main areas of description as outlined in AACR2. Cataloguing textbooks are also referred to when appropriate. Findings - The article finds that general order of elements has been remarkably constant throughout the period, most variation being seen in the physical description area. Primacy of the title page as a source of information is long established. Publisher's name was often of minor importance, and in public libraries physical description was greatly reduced. It is clear from wording that codes often adopted rules from one another, and evidently some libraries made a great attempt to adopt the latest thinking. Solutions to some problems evolved gradually over a long period. Even some apparently minor aspects of punctuation have a long pedigree. ISBD clearly drew on a long-established consensus as far as possible. Practical implications - In revising AACR2 it is important to be able to see how we have reached where we are now, and in particular to avoid repetition of past mistakes. In an increasingly international publishing environment it is vital to solve the problem of multiple places of publication. Originality/value - This subject has never been tackled in this way before, and the findings are timely for the ongoing revision of AACR2.

Type

a
Bowman, J.H.: Sic catalog syndrome : title page transcription as barrier to retrieval (2001) 0.00
```
0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 5421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=5421,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5421, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Examines the problem of errors in the chief source of information and their transcription into catalog records. A survey of 80 different OPACs was undertaken, looking at the occurrence of "sic" and "i.e." in titles and the position of the errors within the titles. The various usages of "sic" and "i.e." are categorized and described; these range from those where the error is obvious to some where there seems to be no error at all. Some seem to be clear misuses, particularly the common system of using additions in square brackets to spell out numerals, and in some cases the cataloger goes beyond what is required. Concludes with recommendations for improvement in retrieval.

Type

a
Bowman, J.H.: Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR) (2009) 0.00
```
0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 3746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=3746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 3746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

This entry covers both the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules of 1967 and the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition of 1978 and later. These were the most important advances in English-language codes for descriptive cataloging during the twentieth century. The 1967 code, produced in different American and British editions, included rules for choice and form of headings as well as rules for description, the former being based on the outcomes of the Paris Conference on Cataloguing Principles of 1961. The advent of International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) brought changes to the rules for description, and these were incorporated in the 1978 code, which for the first time instituted a formal separation between description and access points. Significant features of both editions are described.

Type

a

Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

Years