Search (224 results, page 1 of 12)

0.084125064 = product of:
  0.16825013 = sum of:
    0.07516225 = weight(_text_:subject in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07516225 = score(doc=4869,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
    0.09308788 = sum of:
      0.04213896 = weight(_text_:classification in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04213896 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
      0.05094892 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05094892 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article gives an overview of the design and organisation of DutchESS, a Dutch information subject gateway created as a national collaborative effort of the National Library and a number of academic libraries. The combined centralised and distributed model of DutchESS is discussed, as well as its selection policy, its metadata format, classification scheme and retrieval options. Also some options for future collaboration on an international level are explored

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.07498486 = product of:
  0.14996973 = sum of:
    0.13153394 = weight(_text_:subject in 1963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13153394 = score(doc=1963,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.7823804 = fieldWeight in 1963, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1963)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 1963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=1963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1963, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The National Library of Latvia (NLL) made a decision to use the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in 2000. At present the NLL Subject Headings Database in Latvian holds approximately 34,000 subject headings and is used for subject cataloging of textual resources, including articles from serials. For digital objects NLL uses a system like Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST). We succesfully use it in the project "In Search of Lost Latvia," one of the milestones in the development of the subject cataloging of digital resources in Latvia.

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.20-31

0.07092651 = product of:
  0.14185302 = sum of:
    0.1260509 = weight(_text_:subject in 1972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1260509 = score(doc=1972,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.7497667 = fieldWeight in 1972, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1972)
    0.015802111 = product of:
      0.031604223 = sum of:
        0.031604223 = weight(_text_:classification in 1972) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031604223 = score(doc=1972,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1972, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1972)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Provision of high-quality subject metadata is crucial for organizing adequate subject access to rich content aggregated by digital libraries. A number of large-scale digital libraries worldwide are now generating subject metadata to describe not only individual objects but entire digital collections as an integral whole. However, little research to date has been conducted to empirically evaluate the quality of this collection-level subject metadata. The study presented in this article compares free-text and controlled-vocabulary collection-level subject metadata in three large-scale cultural heritage digital libraries in the United States and the European Union. As revealed by this study, the emerging best practices for creating rich collection-level subject metadata includes describing a collection's subject matter with mutually complementary data values in controlled-vocabulary and free-text subject metadata elements. Three kinds of complementarity were observed in this study: one-way complementarity, two-way complementarity, and multiple complementarity.

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.77-89

0.070056714 = product of:
  0.14011343 = sum of:
    0.11274336 = weight(_text_:subject in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11274336 = score(doc=453,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.67061174 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
    0.02737006 = product of:
      0.05474012 = sum of:
        0.05474012 = weight(_text_:classification in 453) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05474012 = score(doc=453,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 453, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=453)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a case study of how well subject metadata (comprising headings from an international classification scheme) has been deployed in a national data catalogue, and how often data seekers use subject metadata when searching for data. Through an analysis of user search behaviour as recorded in search logs, we find evidence that users utilise the subject metadata for data discovery. Since approximately half of the records ingested by the catalogue did not include subject metadata at the time of harvest, we experimented with automatic subject classification approaches in order to enrich these records and to provide additional support for user search and data discovery. Our results show that automatic methods work well for well represented categories of subject metadata, and these categories tend to have features that can distinguish themselves from the other categories. Our findings raise implications for data catalogue providers; they should invest more effort to enhance the quality of data records by providing an adequate description of these records for under-represented subject categories.

0.06942842 = product of:
  0.13885684 = sum of:
    0.06904093 = weight(_text_:subject in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06904093 = score(doc=2556,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
    0.06981591 = sum of:
      0.031604223 = weight(_text_:classification in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031604223 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2556, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2556)
      0.03821169 = weight(_text_:22 in 2556) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03821169 = score(doc=2556,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2556, 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=2556)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

First generation scholarly research on the Web lacked a firm system of authority control. Second generation Web research is beginning to model subject access with library science principles of bibliographic control and cataloguing. Harnessing the Web and organising the intellectual content with standards and controlled vocabulary provides precise search and retrieval capability, increasing relevance and efficient use of technology. Dublin Core metadata standards permit a full evaluation and cataloguing of Web resources appropriate to highly specific research needs and discovery. Current research points to a type of structure based on a system of faceted classification. This system allows the semantic and syntactic relationships to be defined. Controlled vocabulary, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, can be assigned, not in a hierarchical structure, but rather as descriptive facets of relating concepts. Web design features such as this are adding value to discovery and filtering out data that lack authority. The system design allows for scalability and extensibility, two technical features that are integral to future development of the digital library and resource discovery.

Date

30.12.2008 18:22:46

0.06502943 = product of:
  0.13005885 = sum of:
    0.10398671 = weight(_text_:subject in 3955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10398671 = score(doc=3955,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.61852604 = fieldWeight in 3955, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3955)
    0.026072152 = product of:
      0.052144304 = sum of:
        0.052144304 = weight(_text_:classification in 3955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052144304 = score(doc=3955,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 3955, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3955)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Colorado Digitization Project (CDP), begun in the fall of 1998, is a collaborative initiative that involves Colorado's archives, historical societies, libraries, and museums. The project is creating a union catalogue of metadata records and is investigating the use of Dewey Decimal Classification numbers through WebDewey to allow linkage of general subject terms and highly specialized subject terms within a subject browse feature of the union catalogue.

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.063978076 = product of:
  0.12795615 = sum of:
    0.046504267 = weight(_text_:subject in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046504267 = score(doc=6128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 6128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6128)
    0.08145189 = sum of:
      0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03687159 = score(doc=6128,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 6128, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6128)
      0.044580307 = weight(_text_:22 in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044580307 = score(doc=6128,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6128, 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=6128)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Discusses the goals and outcome of the OCLC/NCSA Metadata Workshop, held in Dublin, Ohio, 1-3 Mar 95, which resulted in the proposed 'Dublin Core' Metadata Elements. Describes an attempt to map the Dublin Core data elements to the USMARC format (with particular reference to USMARC field 856 for electronic locations), noting problems and outstanding questions. The USMARC format elements considered include: subject, title, author, other-agent, publisher, publication date, identifier, object-type, form, relation, language, source, coverage, and other issues

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.058764517 = product of:
  0.117529035 = sum of:
    0.092054576 = weight(_text_:subject in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092054576 = score(doc=4867,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 4867, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4867)
    0.02547446 = product of:
      0.05094892 = sum of:
        0.05094892 = weight(_text_:22 in 4867) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05094892 = score(doc=4867,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4867, 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=4867)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The current subject gateways have evolved over time when the discipline of Internet resource discovery was in its infancy. This is reflected by the lack of well-established, light-weight, deployable, easy-to-use, standards for metadata and information retrieval. We provide an introduction to the architecture, standards and software solutions in use by subject gateways, and to the issues that must be addressed to support future subject gateways

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:24

0.05656203 = product of:
  0.11312406 = sum of:
    0.092054576 = weight(_text_:subject in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.092054576 = score(doc=5016,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
    0.02106948 = product of:
      0.04213896 = sum of:
        0.04213896 = weight(_text_:classification in 5016) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04213896 = score(doc=5016,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 5016, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5016)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The charge for the SAC Subcommittee on Metadata and Subject Analysis states: Identify and study the major issues surrounding the use of metadata in the subject analysis and classification of digital resources. Provide discussion forums and programs relevant to these issues. Discussion forums should begin by Annual 1998. The continued need for the subcommittee should be reexamined by SAC no later than 2001.

0.055722162 = product of:
  0.111444324 = sum of:
    0.09300853 = weight(_text_:subject in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09300853 = score(doc=6109,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article describes FAST, the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology, a project at OCLC to make Library of Congress Subject Headings easier to use in Dublin Core metadata by breaking out facets of space, time, and form. Work on FAST can be watched at its web site, http://www.miskatonic.org/library/, which has recent presentations and reports. It is interesting to see facets and Dublin Core combined, though both LCSH and FAST subject headings are beyond what most people making a small faceted classification would want or need.

0.055722162 = product of:
  0.111444324 = sum of:
    0.09300853 = weight(_text_:subject in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09300853 = score(doc=5158,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 5158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=5158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The constantly changing metadata landscape means that libraries need to re-think their approach to standards and subject analysis, to enable the discovery of vast areas of both print and digital content. This article presents a case study from the British Library that assesses the feasibility of adopting FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) to selectively extend the scope of subject indexing of current and legacy content, or implement FAST as a replacement for all LCSH in current cataloging workflows.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.7/8, S.549-559

0.052187763 = product of:
  0.10437553 = sum of:
    0.06904093 = weight(_text_:subject in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06904093 = score(doc=3961,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
    0.035334595 = product of:
      0.07066919 = sum of:
        0.07066919 = weight(_text_:classification in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07066919 = score(doc=3961,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper analyses the approach to resource discovery in the educational domain and stresses this community's need for a subject approach to information. The use of both general (Dublin Core) and domain specific (IEEE Learning Object Metadata/IMS Metadata) metadata schemas for learning resource discovery suggests that library classification could be used for subject description. There are several reasons why this indexing language might be suitable for the indexing of education resources. The paper will explain the reasoning behind the application of Universal Decimal Classification in the EASEL (Educator's Access to Services in the Electronic Landscape - http://www.fdgroup.com/easel) project. EASEL deploys two Dublin Core and several different application profiles of LOM i.e. IMS Metadata and this paper will explain how these two types of metadata support the use of classification.

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.051418956 = product of:
  0.10283791 = sum of:
    0.08054776 = weight(_text_:subject in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08054776 = score(doc=4866,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 4866, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4866)
    0.022290153 = product of:
      0.044580307 = sum of:
        0.044580307 = weight(_text_:22 in 4866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044580307 = score(doc=4866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4866, 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=4866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Information subject gateways provide targeted discovery services for their users, giving access to Web resources selected according to quality and subject coverage criteria. Information gateways recognise that they must collaborate on a wide range of issues relating to content to ensure continued success. This report is informed by discussion of content activities at the 1999 Imesh Workshop. The author considers the implications for subject based gateways of co-operation regarding coverage policy, creation of metadata, and provision of searching and browsing across services. Other possibilities for co-operation include working more closely with information providers, and diclosure of information in joint metadata registries

Date

22. 6.2002 19:38:54

0.049491778 = product of:
  0.098983556 = sum of:
    0.08054776 = weight(_text_:subject in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08054776 = score(doc=1968,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 1968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=1968,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1968, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1968)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Digital Commons platform for institutional repositories provides a three-tiered taxonomy of academic disciplines for each item submitted to the repository. Since faculty and departmental administrators across campuses are encouraged to submit materials to the institutional repository themselves, they must also assign disciplines or subject categories for their own work. The expandable drop-down menu of about 1,000 categories is easy to use, and facilitates the growth of the institutional repository and access to the materials through the Internet.

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 52(2014) no.1, S.110-118

0.049491778 = product of:
  0.098983556 = sum of:
    0.08054776 = weight(_text_:subject in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08054776 = score(doc=1177,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
    0.018435795 = product of:
      0.03687159 = sum of:
        0.03687159 = weight(_text_:classification in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03687159 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Michigan State University Libraries (MSUL) digital repository contains numerous collections of openly available material. Since 2016, the digital repository has been using Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject headings as its primary subject vocabulary in order to streamline faceting, display, and search. The MSUL FAST use case presents some challenges that are not addressed by existing MARC-focused FAST tools. This paper will outline the MSUL digital repository team's justification for including FAST headings in the digital repository as well as workflows for adding FAST headings to Metadata Object Description Schema (MODS) metadata, their maintenance, and utilization for discovery.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.5-6, S.590-604

0.0485423 = product of:
  0.0970846 = sum of:
    0.07427622 = weight(_text_:subject in 3870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07427622 = score(doc=3870,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.4418043 = fieldWeight in 3870, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3870)
    0.022808382 = product of:
      0.045616765 = sum of:
        0.045616765 = weight(_text_:classification in 3870) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045616765 = score(doc=3870,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 3870, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3870)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Data from multiple knowledge organization systems are combined to provide a global overview of the content holdings of a small personal library. Subject headings and classification data are used to effectively map the combined book and topic space of the library. While harvested and manipulated by hand, the work reveals issues and potential solutions when using automated techniques to produce topic maps of much larger libraries. The small library visualized consists of the thirty-nine, digital, English language books found in the Osama Bin Laden (OBL) compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan upon his death. As this list of books has garnered considerable media attention, it is worth providing a visual overview of the subject content of these books - some of which is not readily apparent from the titles. Metadata from subject headings and classification numbers was combined to create book-subject maps. Tree maps of the classification data were also produced. The books contain 328 subject headings. In order to enhance the base map with meaningful thematic overlay, library holding count data was also harvested (and aggregated from duplicates). This additional data revealed the relative scarcity or popularity of individual books.

0.044073388 = product of:
  0.088146776 = sum of:
    0.06904093 = weight(_text_:subject in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06904093 = score(doc=2595,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 2595, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2595)
    0.019105844 = product of:
      0.03821169 = sum of:
        0.03821169 = weight(_text_:22 in 2595) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03821169 = score(doc=2595,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2595, 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=2595)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Academic libraries have moved toward providing social networking features, such as tagging, in their library catalogs. To explore whether user tags can enhance access to individual literary works, the author obtained a sample of individual works of English and American literature from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries from a large academic library catalog and searched them in LibraryThing. The author compared match rates, the availability of subject headings and tags across various literary forms, and the terminology used in tags versus controlled-vocabulary headings on a subset of records. In addition, she evaluated the usefulness of available LibraryThing tags for the library catalog records that lacked subject headings. Options for utilizing the subject terms available in sources outside the local catalog also are discussed.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.04242152 = product of:
  0.08484304 = sum of:
    0.06904093 = weight(_text_:subject in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06904093 = score(doc=1152,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
    0.015802111 = product of:
      0.031604223 = sum of:
        0.031604223 = weight(_text_:classification in 1152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031604223 = score(doc=1152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This study examines subject and genre representation in metadata that describes information resources created for children and young adult audiences. Both quantitative and limited qualitative analyses were applied to the analysis of WorldCat records collected in 2021 and contributed by the Children's and Young Adults' Cataloging Program at the US Library of Congress. This dataset contains records created several years prior to the data collection point and edited by various OCLC member institutions. Findings provide information on the level and patterns of application of these kinds of metadata important for information access, with a focus on the fields, subfields, and controlled vocabularies used. The discussion of results includes a detailed evaluation of genre and subject metadata quality (accuracy, completeness, and consistency).

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 61(2023) no.1, p.47-66

0.039155297 = product of:
  0.078310594 = sum of:
    0.04201697 = weight(_text_:subject in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04201697 = score(doc=2874,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.24992225 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
    0.036293626 = sum of:
      0.023556396 = weight(_text_:classification in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556396 = score(doc=2874,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.15735823 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.01273723 = weight(_text_:22 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01273723 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16460574 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04700564 = queryNorm
          0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

"Libraries: Tools for Education and Development" war das Motto der 70. IFLA-Generalkonferenz, dem Weltkongress Bibliothek und Information, der vom 22.-27. August 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentinien, und damit erstmals in Lateinamerika stattfand. Rund 3.000 Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer, davon ein Drittel aus spanischsprachigen Ländern, allein 600 aus Argentinien, besuchten die von der IFLA und dem nationalen Organisationskomitee gut organisierte Tagung mit mehr als 200 Sitzungen und Veranstaltungen. Aus Deutschland waren laut Teilnehmerverzeichnis leider nur 45 Kolleginnen und Kollegen angereist, womit ihre Zahl wieder auf das Niveau von Boston gesunken ist. Erfreulicherweise gab es nunmehr bereits im dritten Jahr eine deutschsprachige Ausgabe des IFLA-Express. Auch in diesem Jahr soll hier über die Veranstaltungen der Division IV Bibliographic Control berichtet werden. Die Arbeit der Division mit ihren Sektionen Bibliography, Cataloguing, Classification and Indexing sowie der neuen Sektion Knowledge Management bildet einen der Schwerpunkte der IFLA-Arbeit, die dabei erzielten konkreten Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen haben maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die tägliche Arbeit der Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. Erstmals wird auch ausführlich über die Arbeit der Core Activities ICABS und UNIMARC und der Information Technology Section berichtet.

Content

Aus den Arbeitsgruppen der Cataloguing Sektion: Schwerpunkt der Arbeiten der ISBD Review Group bleibt die Fortsetzung des generellen Revisionsprojekts. 2004 konnte die revidierte ISBD(G) veröffentlicht werden Für die Revision der ISBD(A) wurde eine Study Group aus Experten für das Alte Buch gebildet. Das weltweite Stellungnahmeverfahren ist für Frühjahr 2005 geplant. Bezüglich der Revision der ISBD(ER) konnten im weltweiten Stellungnahmeverfahren aufgekommene Fragen während der Sitzungen in Buenos Aires abschließend geklärt werden. Die Veröffentlichung der neuen ISBD(ER) ist für Ende 2004 / Anfang 2005 geplant. Die Revision der ISBD(CM) ist im Rahmen einer gemeinsamen Arbeitsgruppe der ISBD Review Group und der Sektion Geographie und Karten weiter vorangekommen. Für die Revision der ISBD(NBM) soll eine eigene Study Group gebildet werden. Die FRBR Review Group konnte erste Fortschritte bei der Erreichung der im vergangenen Jahr gesetzten Ziele Erarbeitung einer Richtlinie zur Anwendung der FRBR bei der Katalogisierung, Erweiterung der FRBR-Web-Seite im IFLAnet, um bei anderen communities (Archive, Museen etc.) für das Modell zu werben, sowie Überarbeitung des FRBR-Modells vermeIden. Von den in Berlin gebildeten fünf FRBR-Arbeitsgruppen (Expression entity Working Group, Working Group an continuing resources, Working Group an teaching and training, Working Group an subject relationships and classification, Working Group an FRBR/CRM dialogue) sind einige bereits aktiv gewesen, vor allem die letztgenannte Working Group an FRBR/CRM dialogue. Die "Working Group an subject relationships and classification" soll demnächst in Zusammenarbeit mit der Classification and Indexing Section etabliert werden. Ziel hierbei ist es, die FRBR auch auf den Bereich der Inhaltserschließung auszuweiten. Die "Working Group an continuing resources" hat in Buenos Aires beschlossen, ihre Arbeit nicht fortzuführen, da die FRBR in ihrer derzeitigen Fassung "seriality" nicht ausreichend berücksichtigen. Es ist geplant, eine neue Arbeitsgruppe unter Einbeziehung ausgewiesener Experten für fortlaufende Werke zu bilden, die sich mit diesem Problem beschäftigen soll. Für das IFLA Multilingual Dictionary of Cataloguing Terms and Concepts - MulDiCat' konnten die Richtlinien für die Eingabe in die Datenbank fertig gestellt und erforderliche Änderungen in der Datenbank implementiert werden. Die Datenbank dieses IFLA-Projekts enthält mittlerweile alle englischsprachigen Definitionen des AACR2-Glossars, die deutschen Übersetzungen der AACR2-Glossar-Definitionen sowie alle ISBD-Definitionen. Im nächsten Schritt sollen Einträge für die FRBR-Terminologie ergänzt werden. Ebenso sollen Ergänzungen zu den englischen Einträgen vorgenommen werden (aus AACR, ISBD, FRBR und weiteren IFLA-Publikationen). Die Guidelines for OPAC Displays (Richtlinien zur Präsentation von Suchergebnissen im OPAC) stehen nach der Durchführung des weltweiten Stellungnahmeverfahrens zur Veröffentlichung im IFLAnet bereit. Die Working Group an OPAC Displays hat damit ihre Arbeit beendet.
Classification and Indexing Section (Sektion Klassifikation und Indexierung) Die Working Group an Guidelines for Multilingual Thesauri hat ihre Arbeit abgeschlossen, die Richtlinien werden Ende 2004 im IFLAnet zur Verfügung stehen. Die 2003 ins Leben gerufene Arbeitsgruppe zu Mindeststandards der Inhaltserschließung in Nationalbibliographien hat sich in Absprache mit den Mitgliedern des Standing Committee auf den Namen "Guidelines for minimal requirements for subject access by national bibliographic agencies" verständigt. Als Grundlage der zukünftigen Arbeit soll der "Survey an Subject Heading Languages Used in National Libraries and Bibliographies" von Magda HeinerFreiling dienen. Davon ausgehend soll eruiert werden, welche Arten von Medienwerken mit welchen Instrumentarien und in welcher Tiefe erschlossen werden. Eine weitere Arbeitsgruppe der Sektion befasst sich mit dem sachlichen Zugriff auf Netzpublikationen (Working Group an Subject Access to Web Resources). Die Veranstaltung "Implementation and adaption of global tools for subject access to local needs" fand regen Zuspruch. Drei Vortragende zeigten auf, wie in ihrem Sprachgebiet die Subject Headings der Library of Congress (LoC) übernommen werden (Development of a Spanish subject heading list und Subject indexing in Sweden) bzw. wie sich die Zusammenarbeit mit der LoC gestalten lässt, um den besonderen terminologischen Bedürfnissen eines Sprach- und Kulturraums außerhalb der USA Rechnung zu tragen (The SACO Program in Latin America). Aus deutscher Sicht verdiente der Vortrag "Subject indexing between international standards and local context - the Italian case" besondere Beachtung. Die Entwicklung eines Regelwerks zur verbalen Sacherschließung und die Erarbeitung einer italienischen Schlagwortnormdatei folgen nämlich erklärtermaßen der deutschen Vorgehensweise mit RSWK und SWD.

0.037108608 = product of:
  0.074217215 = sum of:
    0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053147733 = score(doc=5513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04700564 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
    0.02106948 = product of:
      0.04213896 = sum of:
        0.04213896 = weight(_text_:classification in 5513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04213896 = score(doc=5513,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04700564 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 5513, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Provides an introductory overview to the subject of metadata, which considers why metadata issues are central to discussions about the evolution of library services-particularly digital library services-and why the cataloging community is, and should be, front and center in those discussions.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 36(2003) nos.3/4, S.19-29