Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010872297 = product of:
  0.03261689 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=5068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
    0.02369266 = weight(_text_:und in 5068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02369266 = score(doc=5068,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 5068, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5068)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Seit den frühen 80er Jahren sind verschiedene OPAC-Studien gemacht worden. Es besteht jedoch Bedarf, in Form von Leitlinien und Empfehlungen einen Praxisband zusammenzustellen, um Bibliotheken Hilfestellung zu geben, ihren OPAC zu gestalten oder neu zu gestalten

0.009484224 = product of:
  0.028452672 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 4503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=4503,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4503, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4503)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 4503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=4503,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4503, 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=4503)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Anglo-American codes are examined to determine the implicit or acting concept of work in each, in order to trace the development of our current implicit concept of work, as embodied in AACR2R. The following conditions are examined, using comparison tables. (1) same work with different appendages (illustrated works, music with text, texts with commentary and/or biographical/critical material, scholia); (2) separately published parts of a work produced by the exercise of several different functions; (3) appendages to a work published separately (commentaries without text, concordances, continuations, indexes, sequels, supplements); (4) change in title of a work. A trend away from the collocation of the editions of a work called for by the second objective of the catalog is identified. It is suggested that this tendency stems from failure to take advantage of newer technologies for building catalogs

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Pt.1: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.1, S.9-28; Pt.2: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22; Pt.4: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.2, S.3-24

0.009484224 = product of:
  0.028452672 = sum of:
    0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 5945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010709076 = score(doc=5945,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 5945, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5945)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 5945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=5945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5945, 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=5945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Anglo-American codes are examined to determine the implicit or acting concept of work in each, in order to trace the development of our current implicit concept of work, as embodied in AACR2R. The following conditions are examined, using comparison tables: (1) contraction of a work (abridgements, condensations, digests, epitomes, outlines, chrestomathies, excerpts, extracts, selections); and (2) change in substance of a work (adaptations, dramatizations, free translations, novelizations, paraphrases, versifications, films or filmstrips of a text, musical arrangements, musical amplifications, musical settings, musical simplifications, musical transcriptions, musical versions, parodies, imitations, performances, reproductions of art works, revisions, editing, enlargements, expansion, updating, translation).

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22

0.008982609 = product of:
  0.026947826 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=735)
    0.020700864 = product of:
      0.04140173 = sum of:
        0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04140173 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 735, 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=735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Part 1 of a series of articles, exploring the concept of 'the work' in cataloguing practice, which attempts to construct a definition of the term based on AACR theory and practice. The study begins with a consideration of the objects of the catalogue, their history and the evidence that bears on the question of the degree to which the user needs access to the work, as opposed to a particular edition of the work

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Pt.2: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22; Pt.3: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.1, S.25-46; Pt.4: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.2, S.3-24

0.008438686 = product of:
  0.025316058 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=595,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 595, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=595)
    0.017743597 = product of:
      0.035487194 = sum of:
        0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035487194 = score(doc=595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043654136 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 595, 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=595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

4th in a series of articles dealing with the concept and application of 'work' in cataloguing. Discusses the general concept of 'work' regardless of format, based on the writings of cataloguing theorists. Identifies a number of different criteris used to define the concept of work including criteria to do with creativity and/or single personal authorship, content, text or symbol strings, medium, identity and representation, and interchangeability, as well as the concept of work as product. Proposes a number of functions to be carried out by the ideal definition of work, and concludes by offering a definition

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Pt.1: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.1, S.9-28; Pt.2: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22; Pt.3: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.1, S.25-46.

0.0020823204 = product of:
  0.012493922 = sum of:
    0.012493922 = weight(_text_:in in 7257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012493922 = score(doc=7257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 7257, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7257)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0020609628 = product of:
  0.012365777 = sum of:
    0.012365777 = weight(_text_:in in 8337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012365777 = score(doc=8337,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 8337, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8337)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

First in a series of articles dealing with the general concept of work as it applies to the cataloguing of materials. In a well designed catalogue, 2 items treated as the same work will display together and be represented as manifestations (editions) or copies of the same work to the user interested in a particular work. Discusses the concepts of work and related work as they apply to moving image works, and recommends their application to woving image works

0.0019955188 = product of:
  0.011973113 = sum of:
    0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011973113 = score(doc=862,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The existence of different versions or manifestations of films has presented a challenge to cataloguers for some time. Reports a study, conducted using a random samp,e of 119 film works held by the Californis University at Los Angeles Film and Television Archive, of the frequency of occurrence of manifestations of films and the visible indicators, accessible to cataloguers, that are associated with these differences. Results found that continuity, or artistic and intellectual content, varies frequently: additionally, some works have added subsidiary matter or differences in language and sound track; and a total of 58% of works sampled had at least one instance of difference in artistic and intellectual content between 2 items. Only 8% were mentioned as having manifestations in standard reference sources. Visible indicators and physical format of films were found to be very unreliable indicators of actual difference in content. Length differences of 3 minutes or more, as found in 72% of titles, are the most reliable indicators of actual differences. This corresponds to findings for books, which indicate paging as the most reliable indicator

0.0019732218 = product of:
  0.01183933 = sum of:
    0.01183933 = weight(_text_:in in 5069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01183933 = score(doc=5069,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19937998 = fieldWeight in 5069, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5069)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Several studies on OPACs have been made since the early 1980s. However, OPAC development has been governed by systems designers, bibliographic networks and technical services librarians, but not necessarily according to user needs. Existing OPACs demonstrate differences, for example, in the range and complexity of their functional features, terminology and help facilities. While many libraries have already established their own OPACs, there is a need to bring together in the form of guidelines or recommendations a corpus of good practice to assist libraries to design or re-design their OPACs.
As mentioned above, the guidelines are intended to apply to all types of catalogue, including Web-based catalogues, GUI-based interfaces, and Z39.50-web interfaces. The focus of the guidelines is on the display of cataloguing information (as opposed to circulation, serials check-in, fund accounting, acquisitions, or bindery information). However, some general statements are made concerning the value of displaying to users information that is drawn from these other types of records. The guidelines do not attempt to cover HELP screens, searching methods, or command names and functions. Thus, the guidelines do not directly address the difference between menu-mode access (so common now in GUI and Web interfaces) vs. command-mode access (often completely unavailable in GUI and Web interfaces). However, note that in menu-mode access, the user often has to go through many more screens to attain results than in command-mode access, and each of these screens constitutes a display. The intent is to recommend a standard set of display defaults, defined as features that should be provided for users who have not selected other options, including users who want to begin searching right away without much instruction. It is not the intent to restrict the creativity of system designers who want to build in further options to offer to advanced users (beyond the defaults), advanced users being those people who are willing to put some time into learning how to use the system in more sophisticated and complex ways. The Task Force is aware of the fact that many existing systems are not capable of following all of the recommendations in this document. We hope that existing systems will attempt to work toward the implementation of the guidelines as they develop new versions of their software in the future.

0.0012620769 = product of:
  0.0075724614 = sum of:
    0.0075724614 = weight(_text_:in in 2782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0075724614 = score(doc=2782,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.12752387 = fieldWeight in 2782, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2782)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Current research on user interfaces to online public access catalogs is reviewed in an attempt to identify research methods and findings applicable to the design of effective user interfaces to online public access catalogs. A broad definition of user interface is employed which includes data structures, in addition to searching and indexing software. The following features of online public access catalogs are discussed: the demonstration of relationships between records, the provision of entry vocabularies, the arrangement of multiple entries on the screen, the provision of access points, the display of single records, and the division of the catalog into separate files or indexes. For each feature, user studies and other research on online public access catalogs are reviewed and those findings summarized which provide insight into user needs concerning that particular feature; issues are identified and directions for further research are suggested. Implications for cataloging codes and standards and system design are discussed