Search (52 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Das, S.; Paik, J.H.: Gender tagging of named entities using retrieval-assisted multi-context aggregation : an unsupervised approach (2023) 0.07 
    0.07141762 = product of:
  0.11426819 = sum of:
    0.035423465 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035423465 = score(doc=941,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.036299463 = weight(_text_:use in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036299463 = score(doc=941,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2870708 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.016396983 = weight(_text_:of in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016396983 = score(doc=941,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=941,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.016784549 = product of:
      0.033569098 = sum of:
        0.033569098 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033569098 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 941, 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=941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.625 = coord(5/8)
    Abstract
    Inferring the gender of named entities present in a text has several practical applications in information sciences. Existing approaches toward name gender identification rely exclusively on using the gender distributions from labeled data. In the absence of such labeled data, these methods fail. In this article, we propose a two-stage model that is able to infer the gender of names present in text without requiring explicit name-gender labels. We use coreference resolution as the backbone for our proposed model. To aid coreference resolution where the existing contextual information does not suffice, we use a retrieval-assisted context aggregation framework. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art name gender inference is possible without supervision. Our proposed method matches or outperforms several supervised approaches and commercially used methods on five English language datasets from different domains.
    Date
    22. 3.2023 12:00:14
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.4, S.461-475
  2. Morris, V.: Automated language identification of bibliographic resources (2020) 0.03 
    0.029424565 = product of:
  0.07846551 = sum of:
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
    0.021862645 = weight(_text_:of in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021862645 = score(doc=5749,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
    0.0223794 = product of:
      0.0447588 = sum of:
        0.0447588 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0447588 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5749, 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=5749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This article describes experiments in the use of machine learning techniques at the British Library to assign language codes to catalog records, in order to provide information about the language of content of the resources described. In the first phase of the project, language codes were assigned to 1.15 million records with 99.7% confidence. The automated language identification tools developed will be used to contribute to future enhancement of over 4 million legacy records.
    Date
    2. 3.2020 19:04:22
  3. Zakaria, M.S.: Measuring typographical errors in online catalogs of academic libraries using Ballard's list : a case study from Egypt (2023) 0.02 
    0.022873346 = product of:
  0.060995586 = sum of:
    0.036153924 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036153924 = score(doc=1184,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324033 = score(doc=1184,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Typographical errors in bibliographic records of online library catalogs are a common troublesome phenomenon, spread all over the world. They can affect the retrieval and identification of items in information retrieval systems and thus prevent users from finding the documents they need. The present study was conducted to measure typographical errors in the online catalog of the Egyptian Universities Libraries Consortium (EULC). The investigation depended on Terry Ballard's typographical error terms list. The EULC catalog was searched to identify matched erroneous records. The study found that the total number of erroneous records reached 1686, whereas the mean error rate for each record is 11.24, which is very high. About 396 erroneous records (23.49%) have been retrieved from Section C of Ballard's list (Moderate Probability). The typographical errors found within the abstracts of the study's sample records represented 35.82%. Omissions were the first common type of errors with 54.51%, followed by transpositions at 17.08%. Regarding the analysis of parts of speech, the study found that 63.46% of errors occur in noun terms. The results of the study indicated that typographical errors still pose a serious challenge for information retrieval systems, especially for library systems in the Arab environment. The study proposes some solutions for Egyptian university libraries in order to avoid typographic mistakes in the future.
  4. Dagher, I.; Soufi, D.: Authority control of Arabic psonal names : RDA and beyond (2021) 0.02 
    0.02130001 = product of:
  0.056800026 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=707,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This paper discusses the basics of creating name authority records for Arabic personal names in accordance with Resource Description and Access instructions and Program for Cooperative Cataloging guidelines. A background into the use of romanization for non-Latin scripts in bibliographic and authority records is provided to establish the context. Issues with romanization that are particular to Arabic are addressed. Separate sections on modern and classical names provide an overview of the major challenges, and strategies to enhance discovery are outlined. The paper concludes with an examination of the possible benefits of identity management and other changes in the authority control landscape for names in non-Latin script.
  5. Dobreski, B.: Common usage as warrant in bibliographic description (2020) 0.02 
    0.021191165 = product of:
  0.056509774 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=5708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
    0.025563288 = weight(_text_:of in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025563288 = score(doc=5708,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=5708,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Purpose Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant. Design/methodology/approach A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization. Findings Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants. Originality/value This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 76(2020) no.1, S.49-66
  6. Schreur, P.E.: ¬The use of Linked Data and artificial intelligence as key elements in the transformation of technical services (2020) 0.02 
    0.020674974 = product of:
  0.055133265 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
    0.017463053 = weight(_text_:of in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463053 = score(doc=125,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Library Technical Services have benefited from numerous stimuli. Although initially looked at with suspicion, transitions such as the move from catalog cards to the MARC formats have proven enormously helpful to libraries and their patrons. Linked data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) hold the same promise. Through the conversion of metadata surrogates (cataloging) to linked open data, libraries can represent their resources on the Semantic Web. But in order to provide some form of controlled access to unstructured data, libraries must reach beyond traditional cataloging to new tools such as AI to provide consistent access to a growing world of full-text resources.
  7. Koster, L.: Persistent identifiers for heritage objects (2020) 0.02 
    0.020659206 = product of:
  0.055091217 = sum of:
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=5718,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
    0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324033 = score(doc=5718,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=5718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.
  8. Pauman Budanovic, M.; Zumer, M.: Prototype cataloging interface based on the IFLA Library Reference Model (LRM). Part 2 : usability evaluation (2021) 0.02 
    0.020398764 = product of:
  0.054396704 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=714,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 714, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=714)
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=714,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 714, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=714)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=714,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 714, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=714)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This paper reports on usability evaluation that was carried out to evaluate the LRM-based prototype interface, presented in Part 1. A combination of focus group, Wizard of Oz method, and think-aloud protocol was used. The study was conducted in May 2019 with seven Slovenian catalogers from Maribor Public Library. Although participants had some difficulties understanding the LRM model, the user interface proved to be quite easy to use, quick to understand, and transparent. The functionality of the proposed prototype proved to be adequate, since the catalogers successfully and independently completed all the tasks without major problems and errors.
  9. Dobreski, B.: Descriptive cataloging : the history and practice of describing library resources (2021) 0.02 
    0.02023685 = product of:
  0.053964935 = sum of:
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
    0.018933605 = weight(_text_:of in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018933605 = score(doc=706,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
    0.009363732 = product of:
      0.018727465 = sum of:
        0.018727465 = weight(_text_:on in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018727465 = score(doc=706,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    Descriptive cataloging is the process of representing resources by recording their identifying traits and selecting specific names and titles to serve as access points. It is a key component of the larger cataloging process alongside subject cataloging, authority work, and encoding. Descriptive cataloging practices have existed for centuries and, over time, have become standardized through the use of cataloging codes. These documents guide this process by prescribing a consistent set of elements, providing directions on how to record these elements, and offering instructions on how to select and format access points. The goal of descriptive cataloging is not to create perfect representations but to provide data to serve users. The international cataloging standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) is now bringing more institutions under the same set of descriptive practices than ever before. This, along with recent technological developments, promises increased sharing and reuse of descriptive cataloging data.
  10. Sfakakis, M.; Zapounidou, S.; Papatheodorou, C.: Mapping derivative relationships from BIBFRAME 2.0 to RDA (2020) 0.02 
    0.019467933 = product of:
  0.051914487 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.011044604 = weight(_text_:of in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011044604 = score(doc=294,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=294,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The mapping from BIBFRAME 2.0 to Resource Description and Access (RDA) is studied focusing on core entities, inherent relationships, and derivative relationships. The proposed mapping rules are evaluated with two gold datasets. Findings indicate that 1) core entities, inherent and derivative relationships may be mapped to RDA, 2) the use of the bf:hasExpression property may cluster bf:Works with the same ideational content and enable their mapping to RDA Works with their Expressions, and 3) cataloging policies have a significant impact on the interoperability between RDA and BIBFRAME datasets. This work complements the investigation of semantic interoperability between the two models previously presented in this journal.
  11. Dunsire, G.; Fritz, D.; Fritz, R.: Instructions, interfaces, and interoperable data : the RIMMF experience with RDA revisited (2020) 0.02 
    0.019198887 = product of:
  0.051197033 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=5751,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    This article presents a case study of RIMMF, a software tool developed to improve the orientation and training of catalogers who use Resource Description and Access (RDA) to maintain bibliographic data. The cataloging guidance and instructions of RDA are based on the Functional Requirements conceptual models that are now consolidated in the IFLA Library Reference Model, but many catalogers are applying RDA in systems that have evolved from inventory and text-processing applications developed from older metadata paradigms. The article describes how RIMMF interacts with the RDA Toolkit and RDA Registry to offer cataloger-friendly multilingual data input and editing interfaces.
  12. Naun, C.C.: Expanding the use of Linked Data value vocabularies in PCC cataloging (2020) 0.02 
    0.018268056 = product of:
  0.048714817 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 123, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=123)
    0.011044604 = weight(_text_:of in 123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011044604 = score(doc=123,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 123, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=123)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=123,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 123, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=123)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    In 2015, the PCC Task Group on URIs in MARC was tasked to identify and address linked data identifiers deployment in the current MARC format. By way of a pilot test, a survey, MARC Discussion papers, Proposals, etc., the Task Group initiated and introduced changes to MARC encoding. The Task Group succeeded in laying the ground work for preparing library data transition from MARC data to a linked data, RDF environment.
  13. Díez Platas, M.L.; Muñoz, S.R.; González-Blanco, E.; Ruiz Fabo, P.; Álvarez Mellado, E.: Medieval Spanish (12th-15th centuries) named entity recognition and attribute annotation system based on contextual information (2021) 0.02 
    0.017521683 = product of:
  0.046724487 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.015778005 = weight(_text_:of in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015778005 = score(doc=93,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.00955682 = product of:
      0.01911364 = sum of:
        0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01911364 = score(doc=93,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    The recognition of named entities in Spanish medieval texts presents great complexity, involving specific challenges: First, the complex morphosyntactic characteristics in proper-noun use in medieval texts. Second, the lack of strict orthographic standards. Finally, diachronic and geographical variations in Spanish from the 12th to 15th century. In this period, named entities usually appear as complex text structure. For example, it was frequent to add nicknames and information about the persons role in society and geographic origin. To tackle this complexity, named entity recognition and classification system has been implemented. The system uses contextual cues based on semantics to detect entities and assign a type. Given the occurrence of entities with attached attributes, entity contexts are also parsed to determine entity-type-specific dependencies for these attributes. Moreover, it uses a variant generator to handle the diachronic evolution of Spanish medieval terms from a phonetic and morphosyntactic viewpoint. The tool iteratively enriches its proper lexica, dictionaries, and gazetteers. The system was evaluated on a corpus of over 3,000 manually annotated entities of different types and periods, obtaining F1 scores between 0.74 and 0.87. Attribute annotation was evaluated for a person and role name attributes with an overall F1 of 0.75.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 72(2021) no.2, S.224-238
  14. Kim, J.(im); Kim, J.(enna): Effect of forename string on author name disambiguation (2020) 0.01 
    0.014786468 = product of:
  0.03943058 = sum of:
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=5930,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5930, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5930)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=5930,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5930, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5930, 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=5930)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    In author name disambiguation, author forenames are used to decide which name instances are disambiguated together and how much they are likely to refer to the same author. Despite such a crucial role of forenames, their effect on the performance of heuristic (string matching) and algorithmic disambiguation is not well understood. This study assesses the contributions of forenames in author name disambiguation using multiple labeled data sets under varying ratios and lengths of full forenames, reflecting real-world scenarios in which an author is represented by forename variants (synonym) and some authors share the same forenames (homonym). The results show that increasing the ratios of full forenames substantially improves both heuristic and machine-learning-based disambiguation. Performance gains by algorithmic disambiguation are pronounced when many forenames are initialized or homonyms are prevalent. As the ratios of full forenames increase, however, they become marginal compared to those by string matching. Using a small portion of forename strings does not reduce much the performances of both heuristic and algorithmic disambiguation methods compared to using full-length strings. These findings provide practical suggestions, such as restoring initialized forenames into a full-string format via record linkage for improved disambiguation performances.
    Date
    11. 7.2020 13:22:58
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.7, S.839-855
  15. Zhang, L.; Lu, W.; Yang, J.: LAGOS-AND : a large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation (2023) 0.01 
    0.012848942 = product of:
  0.034263846 = sum of:
    0.012473608 = weight(_text_:of in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473608 = score(doc=883,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=883,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, 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=883)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)
    Abstract
    In this article, we present a method to automatically build large labeled datasets for the author ambiguity problem in the academic world by leveraging the authoritative academic resources, ORCID and DOI. Using the method, we built LAGOS-AND, two large, gold-standard sub-datasets for author name disambiguation (AND), of which LAGOS-AND-BLOCK is created for clustering-based AND research and LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE is created for classification-based AND research. Our LAGOS-AND datasets are substantially different from the existing ones. The initial versions of the datasets (v1.0, released in February 2021) include 7.5 M citations authored by 798 K unique authors (LAGOS-AND-BLOCK) and close to 1 M instances (LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE). And both datasets show close similarities to the whole Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) across validations of six facets. In building the datasets, we reveal the variation degrees of last names in three literature databases, PubMed, MAG, and Semantic Scholar, by comparing author names hosted to the authors' official last names shown on the ORCID pages. Furthermore, we evaluate several baseline disambiguation methods as well as the MAG's author IDs system on our datasets, and the evaluation helps identify several interesting findings. We hope the datasets and findings will bring new insights for future studies. The code and datasets are publicly available.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:40:36
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.168-185
  16. Boruah, B.B.; Ravikumar, S.; Gayang, F.L.: Consistency, extent, and validation of the utilization of the MARC 21 bibliographic standard in the college libraries of Assam in India (2023) 0.01 
    0.0128280185 = product of:
  0.051312074 = sum of:
    0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029222867 = score(doc=1183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
    0.022089208 = weight(_text_:of in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022089208 = score(doc=1183,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This paper brings light to the existing practice of cataloging in the college libraries of Assam in terms of utilizing the MARC 21 standard and its structure, i.e., the tags, subfield codes, and indicators. Catalog records from six college libraries are collected and a survey is conducted to understand the local users' information requirements for the catalog. Places, where libraries have scope to improve and which divisions of tags could be more helpful for them in information retrieval, are identified and suggested. This study fulfilled the need for local-level assessment of the catalogs.
  17. Abrahamse, B.: Corporate bodies : access points and authority control (2021) 0.01 
    0.011391239 = product of:
  0.045564957 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=698)
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=698,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 698, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=698)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The concept of authorship is central to how libraries organize their collections. But libraries do not only collect resources created by individuals, they also collect documents issued by organizations. Library catalogers use the concept of a "corporate body" to treat organizations as authors for the purpose of making their documents discoverable to users. This essay looks at the key features of establishing authorized access points (AAPs) and applying authority control for corporate bodies. It examines how practices with regard to corporate bodies have changed over time and considers the changes catalogers might expect to see in the future.
  18. Serra, L.G.; Schneider, J.A.; Santarém Segundo, J.E.: Person identifiers in MARC 21 records in a semantic environment (2020) 0.01 
    0.010868087 = product of:
  0.04347235 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
    0.013526822 = weight(_text_:of in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013526822 = score(doc=127,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    This article discusses how libraries can include person identifiers in the MARC format. It suggests using URIs in fields and subfields to help transition the data to an RDF model, and to help prepare the catalog for a Linked Data. It analyzes the selection of URIs and Real-World Objects, and the use of tag 024 to describe person identifiers in authority records. When a creator or collaborator is identified in a work, the identifiers are transferred from authority to the bibliographic record. The article concludes that URI-based descriptions can provide a better experience for users, offering other methods of discovery.
  19. Farmer, L.S.J.: Cataloging children's materials : issues and solutions (2021) 0.01 
    0.010247533 = product of:
  0.040990133 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
    0.011044604 = weight(_text_:of in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011044604 = score(doc=701,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    Library catalogs remain challenging for children to use, especially because children have difficulty with multi-step processes, have less semantic and technical knowledge, and often search differently from adults. Child-friendly catalogs should have clear, simple protocols and visual guides that are standardized yet include flexible options for differentiated manipulation. Materials should be described accurately and in ways that connect meaningfully to children. More fundamentally, cataloging children's materials needs to be done in light of children as potential users and limitations of the integrated library management system itself. Getting children's feedback in the process can optimize the results.
  20. Samples, J.; Bigelow, I.: MARC to BIBFRAME : converting the PCC to Linked Data (2020) 0.01 
    0.00789673 = product of:
  0.03158692 = sum of:
    0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020662563 = score(doc=119,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
    0.010924355 = product of:
      0.02184871 = sum of:
        0.02184871 = weight(_text_:on in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02184871 = score(doc=119,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)
    Abstract
    The Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) has formal relationships with the Library of Congress (LC), Share-VDE, and Linked Data for Production Phase 2 (LD4P2) for work on Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), and PCC institutions have been very active in the exploration of MARC to BIBFRAME conversion processes. This article will review the involvement of PCC in the development of BIBFRAME and examine the work of LC, Share-VDE, and LD4P2 on MARC to BIBFRAME conversion. It will conclude with a discussion of areas for further exploration by the PCC leading up to the creation of PCC conversion specifications and PCC BIBFRAME data.

Authors

Languages

  • e 51
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 50
  • el 2
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications