Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0026742492 = product of:
  0.0053484985 = sum of:
    0.0053484985 = product of:
      0.010696997 = sum of:
        0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 2693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010696997 = score(doc=2693,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2693, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2693)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The computer technology has considerable potential for better and more efficient management of knowledge and information sources. It is possible to provide easy, integrated and straightforward access to works of knowledge appearing in different expressions, editions, and manifestations (i.e., to bibliographic families). The online environment requires that the bibliographic record, as the surrogate for works of knowledge, should be restructured to provide users with a high-quality finding, identifying and collocating bibliographic tool. Unlike the existing flat structure, the multi-level structure of the Work Record would provide catalog users with the ability to discover if a work has been published/represented in different editions and manifestations and if there is any relationship among different works in a catalog or an the Internet. A similar structure for the Author Record would provide better access to different works by an author or about an author. A new structure for the bibliographic record is suggested through an analysis and categorization of the different relationships that exist in the bibliographic universe. A prototype catalogue developed based an the new structure (available an the Internet at: http://wilma.silas.unsw.edu.au/ students/rfattahi/super.html) illustrates the ability of providing multi-level, yet easy access to voluminous works and voluminous authors. Furthermore, the prototype catalog provides a clearer picture of bibliographic families and helps OPAC users decide an specific editions, manifestations, or items related to a specific work.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=131,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Argues that in library cataloguing and for optional functionality of bibliographic records the indexing of fields and subfields should follow a uniform approach. This would maintain effectiveness in searching, retrieval and display of bibliographic information both within systems and between systems. However, a review of different postings to the AUTOCAT and USMARC discussion lists indicates that the indexing and tagging of cataloguing data do not, at present, follow a consistent approach in online library systems. If the rationale of cataloguing principles is to bring uniformity in bibliographic description and effectiveness in access, they should also address the question of uniform approaches to the indexing of cataloguing data. In this context and in terms of the identification and handling of data elements, cataloguing standards (codes, MARC formats and the Z39.50 standard) should be brought closer, in that they should provide guidelines for the designation of data elements for machine readable records

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=3828,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3828, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3828)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Suggests that an appropriate approach in comparing online and card catalogues is to compare the 2 in relation to the processes in which bibliographic records are created (the input stage), manipulated (the storage stage) and retrieved (the output stage). Studies the concepts underlying these processes and reveals major differences between online and card catalogues. These differences are multiplied and widened when moving from input to output to such an extent that online catalogues can be considered as a significant departure from manual catalogues. The redesign for use in an online environment of bibliographical standards which are based on the card catalogue should be based on conceptual as well as practical differences between the online and card catalogues

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 6431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=6431,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 6431, 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=6431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Online catalogues and card catalogues can be compared from different perspectives and according to different criteria. Compares the 2 types of catalogue according to the processes in which bibliographic records are created (input stage), manipulated (storage stage) and retrieval (output stage). The concepts underlying these stages are studied, revealing major differences between online and card catalogues, which are multiplied and widened when moving from input and output stage to such an extent that online catalogues can be considered as a significant departure from manual catalogues. The redesign for use in the online environment of bibliographic standards (cataloguing codes, MARC formats and ISBDs) which have been based on the concept of the card catalogue should instead be based on the conceptual as well as the practical differences between the online and the card catalogue

Type

a