Search (46 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  1. Taylor, A.G.: Implementing AACR and AACR2 : a personal perspective and lessons learned (2012) 0.07
    0.07154127 = product of:
      0.14308254 = sum of:
        0.14308254 = sum of:
          0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.099987686 = score(doc=2546,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045439374 = queryNorm
              0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 2546, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2546)
          0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 2546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043094855 = score(doc=2546,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045439374 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2546, 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=2546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    As we move toward implementing RDA: Resource Description and Access, I have been pondering how we might manage the transition to new cataloging rules effectively. I was a practicing cataloger when Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., was implemented and remember it as a traumatic process. The published literature that I found focused on the impact of the then-new rules on specific formats and genres, but no one seems to have addressed the process of implementation and what type of training worked well (or did not). After a bit of sleuthing, I found a pertinent presentation by Arlene G. Taylor, which she graciously agreed to repurpose as this guest editorial.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  2. Coyle, K.: FRBR, before and after : a look at our bibliographic models (2016) 0.03
    0.033245962 = product of:
      0.066491924 = sum of:
        0.066491924 = sum of:
          0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.035709884 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045439374 = queryNorm
              0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
          0.03078204 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03078204 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045439374 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    Part I. Work, model, technologyThe work -- The model -- The technology -- Part II. FRBR and other solutions -- Introduction -- FRBR : standard for international sharing -- The entity-relation model -- What is modeled in FRBR -- Does FRBR meet FRBR's objectives? -- Some issues that arise -- Bibliographic description and the Semantic Web.
    Date
    12. 2.2016 16:22:58
  3. Gorman, M.: ¬The origins and making of the ISBD : a personal history, 1966-1978 (2014) 0.02
    0.024996921 = product of:
      0.049993843 = sum of:
        0.049993843 = product of:
          0.099987686 = sum of:
            0.099987686 = weight(_text_:i in 1995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.099987686 = score(doc=1995,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 1995, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1995)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    What follows are my memories of the events, starting almost five decades ago, that led to the International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD)-still the most successful and widely used international cataloging standard in history. Many of the documents of the time were little more than ephemera (working papers and the like) and some are not now available to me. I have checked my recollections in all the documents to which I have access and apologize in advance for any errors of time or place. I also apologize for the, alas, unavoidable, given the nature of the essay, many repetitions of the words "I" and "me."
  4. Polidoro, P.: Using qualitative methods to analyze online catalog interfaces (2015) 0.02
    0.017675493 = product of:
      0.035350986 = sum of:
        0.035350986 = product of:
          0.07070197 = sum of:
            0.07070197 = weight(_text_:i in 1879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07070197 = score(doc=1879,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 1879, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1879)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Many experts have proposed an evolution toward "next generation catalogs," whose main features are partly inspired by commercial websites such as Google or Amazon. This article examines pros and cons of this integration. It also aims to show how a qualitative approach helps to broaden understanding of web communication mechanisms. After discussing some examples of "next generation catalog" features, I analyze the interface of an online catalog responding to different users' information needs and seeking behaviors. In the conclusion I suggest that the right approach to integration is a "translation" (not a "copy and paste") between commercial and library logics.
  5. Forassiepi, S.: ISBD and REICAT : a relationship between past, present, and future (2014) 0.02
    0.017675493 = product of:
      0.035350986 = sum of:
        0.035350986 = product of:
          0.07070197 = sum of:
            0.07070197 = weight(_text_:i in 2001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07070197 = score(doc=2001,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 2001, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2001)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries are faced with an epochal transformation: the emergence of a new structure of the web, the Semantic Web. The data structure will change completely in the next few years, leading to profound changes in information organization and retrieval. In this article I compare International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) and Regole italiane di catalogazione (REICAT), the new Italian cataloging rules, to see when confronted with this phenomenon, how ready they are to structure bibliographic data in new ways to support information retrieval.
    Location
    I
  6. Manzanos, N.: Item, document, carrier : an object oriented approach (2012) 0.02
    0.015150423 = product of:
      0.030300846 = sum of:
        0.030300846 = product of:
          0.060601693 = sum of:
            0.060601693 = weight(_text_:i in 1912) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.060601693 = score(doc=1912,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 1912, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1912)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    I discuss the concept of Item as stated by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) in the conceptual model Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the object-oriented version of it (FRBRoo). Using object-oriented modeling techniques I analyze the relationship of the Item with the Manifestation entity, the concept of Document, and the physical object as a Carrier of a Content. A class scheme is proposed, not only as an implementation example, but as a way of clarifying some bibliographic concepts as well.We discusses the concept of Item as stated by IFLA in the conceptual model FRBR and the object oriented version of it (FRBRoo). Using object oriented modelling techniques we analize the relationship of the Item with the Manifestation entity, the concept of Document and the physical object as a Carrier of a Content. A class scheme is proposed, not only as an implementation example, but as a way of clarify some bibliographic concepts as well.
  7. Wiesenmüller, H.: Drei Minuten RDA: Filme (2015) 0.01
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = product of:
          0.05713582 = sum of:
            0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 1775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05713582 = score(doc=1775,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1775, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1775)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Jüngst bin ich gefragt worden, wer denn eigentlich der geistige Schöpfer eines Films sei - der Regisseur vielleicht? Oder der Drehbuchschreiber? Tatsächlich geht RDA nur in seltenen Fällen davon aus, dass man bei Filmen einen geistigen Schöpfer im normalen Sinn identifizieren kann. Das ist dann der Fall, wenn eine Person praktisch im Alleingang für den gesamten Film verantwortlich ist. Dann wird die Beziehungskennzeichnung "Filmemacher" aus Anhang I.2.1 vergeben. Bei normalen Bibliotheksmaterialien dürften derartige Produktionen nur höchst selten vorkommen, aber auf Youtube findet man sicher zahllose Beispiele dafür. ...
  8. Richert, N.: Authors in the Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet database (2011) 0.01
    0.014283955 = product of:
      0.02856791 = sum of:
        0.02856791 = product of:
          0.05713582 = sum of:
            0.05713582 = weight(_text_:i in 1895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05713582 = score(doc=1895,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1895, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1895)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The Physics-Astronomy-Mathematics Division Vendor Update Session at the Special Libraries Association 2010 Annual Conference in New Orleans had a panel of four representatives of organizations involved in author authority work. In my presentation I described the involvement of Mathematical Reviews/MathSciNet in author authority work, from the hand work done with file cards in 1940 through the present day work combining computer systems and hand work. This paper is an expanded version of my comments.
  9. Buttò, S.: RDA: analyses, considerations and activities by the Central Institute for the Union Catalogue of Italian Libraries and Bibliographic Information (ICCU) (2016) 0.01
    0.012625352 = product of:
      0.025250703 = sum of:
        0.025250703 = product of:
          0.050501406 = sum of:
            0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 2958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.050501406 = score(doc=2958,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 2958, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2958)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Language
    i
    Location
    I
  10. Neuböck, I.: 2015 - Das erste Jahr der RDA : ein erster Statusbericht (2015) 0.01
    0.012498461 = product of:
      0.024996921 = sum of:
        0.024996921 = product of:
          0.049993843 = sum of:
            0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 1830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049993843 = score(doc=1830,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 1830, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1830)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
  11. Petrucciani, A.: From the FRBR model to the Italian Cataloguing Code (and vice versa?) (2012) 0.01
    0.012498461 = product of:
      0.024996921 = sum of:
        0.024996921 = product of:
          0.049993843 = sum of:
            0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 1920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049993843 = score(doc=1920,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 1920, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1920)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Location
    I
  12. Taniguchi, S.: User tasks in the RDA-based model (2013) 0.01
    0.012498461 = product of:
      0.024996921 = sum of:
        0.024996921 = product of:
          0.049993843 = sum of:
            0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049993843 = score(doc=1956,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    I examine user tasks and their related issues in the model that reflects Resource Description and Access (RDA) directly, which complements prior studies that dealt mainly with entities and their attributes and relationships. First, the definitions of user tasks in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD), and RDA, respectively, are reviewed. Then, mappings between attributes and relationships of the RDA entities to the user tasks are proposed for the RDA-based model; the mapping covering Group 1 and 2 entities, and that for the other entities. The resultant RDA mappings and those shown in FRBR and FRAD are compared, which reveals the superiority of the former mappings.
  13. Bianchini, C.; Zappalà, P.: ISBD and mechanical musical devices : a case study of the Department of Musicology and Cultural Heritage, University of Pavia, Italy (2014) 0.01
    0.012498461 = product of:
      0.024996921 = sum of:
        0.024996921 = product of:
          0.049993843 = sum of:
            0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049993843 = score(doc=2002,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2002, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2002)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Location
    I
  14. Valacchi, F.: Things in the World : the integration process of archival descriptions in intercultural systems (2016) 0.01
    0.012498461 = product of:
      0.024996921 = sum of:
        0.024996921 = product of:
          0.049993843 = sum of:
            0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 2957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049993843 = score(doc=2957,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 2957, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2957)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Language
    i
  15. Sjökvist, P.: Transcription in rare books cataloging (2016) 0.01
    0.012498461 = product of:
      0.024996921 = sum of:
        0.024996921 = product of:
          0.049993843 = sum of:
            0.049993843 = weight(_text_:i in 5127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049993843 = score(doc=5127,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 5127, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5127)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The implementation of RDA poses questions regarding its application on early printed material, e.g., concerning transcription of title information. Cataloging rules used today for early printed books often include a normalization that is misleading, both for libraries and for users. In this article, ideas concerning transcription according to RDA are discussed. These ideas focus on the double purposes of identifying and retrieving an item. For the first purpose, I suggest a transcription of the title, which closely follows the original ("take what you see"), and for the second, a completely normalized variant title.
  16. Noruzi, A.: FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2012) 0.01
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = product of:
          0.049251262 = sum of:
            0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049251262 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:13:52
  17. Hamm, S.; Schneider, K.: Automatische Erschließung von Universitätsdissertationen (2015) 0.01
    0.0123128155 = product of:
      0.024625631 = sum of:
        0.024625631 = product of:
          0.049251262 = sum of:
            0.049251262 = weight(_text_:22 in 1715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049251262 = score(doc=1715,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1715, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1715)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 27(2015) H.1, S.18-22
  18. Chambers, S.; Myall, C.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2007-8 (2010) 0.01
    0.010773714 = product of:
      0.021547427 = sum of:
        0.021547427 = product of:
          0.043094855 = sum of:
            0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043094855 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  19. Bloss, M.E.: Testing RDA at Dominican University's Graduate School of Library and Information Science : the students' perspectives (2011) 0.01
    0.010773714 = product of:
      0.021547427 = sum of:
        0.021547427 = product of:
          0.043094855 = sum of:
            0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 1899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043094855 = score(doc=1899,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1899, 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=1899)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    25. 5.2015 18:36:22
  20. Theimer, S.: ¬A cataloger's resolution to become more creative : how and why (2012) 0.01
    0.010773714 = product of:
      0.021547427 = sum of:
        0.021547427 = product of:
          0.043094855 = sum of:
            0.043094855 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043094855 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15912095 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045439374 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    29. 5.2015 11:08:22

Languages

Types

  • a 40
  • el 9
  • b 4
  • m 3
  • n 1
  • r 1
  • More… Less…

Classifications