Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04473507 = product of:
  0.08947014 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1426,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1426, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1426)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 1426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=1426,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 1426, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1426)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The cataloguing of Internet documents presents challenges. Several US projects such as the OCLC Internet resources and Intercat project, the Text Encoding Initiative and the OCLC Dublic Core Project have helped identify the principle problems. Tools such as Unifrom Resource Identifiers, Uniform Resource Names and Persistant Uniform Resource Locators were developed to assist cataloguers in bringing order to the chaos of the Internet. Describes these projects and tools. Discusses the levels of competency that will be required by cataloguers in the future and their role in establishing standards for for information interchange for the Internet community

0.0059767957 = product of:
  0.023907183 = sum of:
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 1.2016 19:08:22

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1974,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1974, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1974)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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