Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.12351861 = sum of:
  0.028289331 = product of:
    0.113157324 = sum of:
      0.113157324 = weight(_text_:authors in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.113157324 = score(doc=1891,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.22694089 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049780685 = queryNorm
          0.49862027 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.095229276 = product of:
    0.19045855 = sum of:
      0.19045855 = weight(_text_:m.b in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19045855 = score(doc=1891,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35012987 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049780685 = queryNorm
          0.54396546 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
    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.

0.11883536 = product of:
  0.23767072 = sum of:
    0.23767072 = sum of:
      0.19045855 = weight(_text_:m.b in 5122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19045855 = score(doc=5122,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35012987 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049780685 = queryNorm
          0.54396546 = fieldWeight in 5122, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5122)
      0.047212172 = weight(_text_:22 in 5122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047212172 = score(doc=5122,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17432348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049780685 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5122, 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=5122)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 3.2019 18:04:22

0.115232855 = sum of:
  0.020003578 = product of:
    0.08001431 = sum of:
      0.08001431 = weight(_text_:authors in 1974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08001431 = score(doc=1974,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.22694089 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049780685 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 1974, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1974)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.095229276 = product of:
    0.19045855 = sum of:
      0.19045855 = weight(_text_:m.b in 1974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.19045855 = score(doc=1974,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35012987 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049780685 = queryNorm
          0.54396546 = fieldWeight in 1974, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1974)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes in detail the management of a Resource Description and Access (RDA) implementation process by an academic library that was an early adopter of RDA. It identifies the necessary decisions to be made and discusses the rationale behind these decisions during the implementation process. This information can benefit other libraries with managing their local RDA implementations. The authors examine the business case behind implementation from various perspectives such as administrative support, training, documentation, establishment of local procedures and costs. It aims to help cataloging/technical services/metadata managers understand the scope of the process and the impact it will have on their libraries.

0.03401046 = product of:
  0.06802092 = sum of:
    0.06802092 = product of:
      0.13604183 = sum of:
        0.13604183 = weight(_text_:m.b in 2394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13604183 = score(doc=2394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35012987 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049780685 = queryNorm
            0.38854676 = fieldWeight in 2394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.033448 = idf(docFreq=105, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2394)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)