Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=5772,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It has been widely recognised that MLS courses and on-the-job training need to be supplemented by continuing professional development (CPD), if catalogers are to fulfil their potential and remain in the field. The results of a questionnaire survey show that catalogers and other metadata specialists are undertaking a broad range of CPD activities, and would welcome more opportunities. They are especially keen on short courses, but also interested in more formal and longer-term programs, and are looking to upgrade their skills and knowledge in both traditional and emerging areas. While most think that their CPD efforts can advance their careers, many catalogers consider levels of support from employers and the profession to be less than adequate.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=2278,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2278, 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=2278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes the development and application of the Cat with Moose courseware in the cataloging curricula at Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore, which offers diploma-level, paraprofessional training in library and information service (LIS). The aim of Cat with Mouse is to provide students with practice in cataloging a range of materials, both print and nonprint, in an online environment. The courseware checks the entries as students progress through the record template and allows them to simultaneously consult windows containing the relevant sources of information. The product is designed to be used as a revision tool and is accessible to students through the Internet. The development team revised a prototype version after feedback was collected by means of a questionnaire. Most students found the courseware useful and that it made revision easier. It is argued that, as an assessment tool, Cat with Mouse is also reliable and valid, and that the distinctive benefits the courseware offers has made the investment in the project worthwhile.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 2808) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=2808,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 2808, 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=2808)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to consider the nature of community information (CI) and proposes a data model, based on the entity-relationship approach adopted in the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), which may assist with the development of future metadata standards for CI systems. Design/methodology/approach - The two main data structure standards for CI, namely the element set developed by the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems (AIRS) and the MARC21 Format for CI, are compared by means of a mapping exercise, after which an entity-relationship data model is constructed, at a conceptual level, based on the definitions of CI found in the literature. Findings - The AIRS and MARC21 data structures converge to a fair degree, with MARC21 providing for additional detail in several areas. However, neither structure is systematically and unambiguously defined, suggesting the need for a data model. An entity-relationship data modelling approach, similar to that taken in FRBR, yielded a model that could be used as the basis for future standards development and research. It was found to effectively cover both the AIRS and MARC21 element sets. Originality/value - No explicit data model exists for CI, and there has been little discussion reported about what data elements are required to support CI seeking.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 5143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=5143,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5143, 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=5143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The four FRBR user tasks have become widely accepted as functions of the library catalog, but there have been only sporadic discussions concerning their validity and sufficiency, despite their modification in the models subsequently presented in the FRAD, FRSAD, and draft FRBR-LRM reports. This article presents a critique of the four variant sets of user tasks, and proposes an extended set of six generic end-user tasks, applicable to both bibliographic and authority data: locate, collocate, connect, identify, select, and obtain. The article also outlines their interrelationships and suggests those tasks that may be particularly well supported by professional cataloging.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=785,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the light of a proposal for names of families to be treated as a separate form of name heading in the forthcoming Resource Description and Access, this article examines the treatment of families in the Anglo-American descriptive cataloging tradition and the extent to which names of families have been assigned as non-subject access points. It contrasts manuscript catalogers' practice of assigning family name headings with the general binary division of personal and corporate names, and discusses how an expansion of the library definition of authorship, so as to accommodate the archival concept of provenance, may more readily allow for familial and other non-corporate group authors. It concludes by suggesting that a corporate and non-corporate group categorisation may be unnecessary, and that instead the corporate body class should be revised, so as to encompass all groups of persons.

Type

a

0.001674345 = product of:
  0.00334869 = sum of:
    0.00334869 = product of:
      0.00669738 = sum of:
        0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00669738 = score(doc=1958,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1958, 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=1958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Resource Description and Access (RDA) stipulates that certain "core" elements should always be included, where applicable, in bibliographic and authority records, due to their importance in supporting the user tasks defined in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. However, the elements' relative importance has not been empirically tested. This study investigates which elements in bibliographic records are currently most used in a university library catalog, by means of think-aloud sessions conducted by expert and non-expert users, who were assigned sets of typical bibliographic tasks. The results indicate that, in this context at least, the most utilized elements are not all core.

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 2995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=2995,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 2995, 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=2995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 2086) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=2086,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2086, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2086)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An overview of the field of information organization that examines resource description as both a product and process of the contemporary digital environment. This timely book employs the unifying mechanism of the semantic web and the resource description framework to integrate the various traditions and practices of information and knowledge organization. Uniquely, it covers both the domain-specific traditions and practices and the practices of the 'metadata movement' through a single lens - that of resource description in the broadest, semantic web sense. This approach more readily accommodates coverage of the new Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard, which aims to move library cataloguing into the centre of the semantic web. The work surrounding RDA looks set to revolutionise the field of information organization, and this book will bring both the standard and its model and concepts into focus.

0.0011839407 = product of:
  0.0023678814 = sum of:
    0.0023678814 = product of:
      0.0047357627 = sum of:
        0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047357627 = score(doc=234,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a