Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Oliver, C: Introducing RDA : a guide to the basics after 3R (2021) 0.05 
    0.052203763 = product of:
  0.10440753 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=716,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
    0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09582469 = score(doc=716,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Since Oliver's guide was first published in 2010, thousands of LIS students, records managers, and catalogers and other library professionals have relied on its clear, plainspoken explanation of RDA: Resource Description and Access as their first step towards becoming acquainted with the cataloging standard. Now, reflecting the changes to RDA after the completion of the 3R Project, Oliver brings her Special Report up to date. This essential primer concisely explains what RDA is, its basic features, and the main factors in its development describes RDA's relationship to the international standards and models that continue to influence its evolution provides an overview of the latest developments, focusing on the impact of the 3R Project, the results of aligning RDA with IFLA's Library Reference Model (LRM), and the outcomes of internationalization illustrates how information is organized in the post 3R Toolkit and explains how to navigate through this new structure; and discusses how RDA continues to enable improved resource discovery both in traditional and new applications, including the linked data environment.
    LCSH
    Descriptive cataloging / Standards
    Subject
    Descriptive cataloging / Standards
  2. Kyprianos, K.; Lolou, E.; Efthymiou, F.: Cataloging quality and the views of catalogers in Hellenic academic libraries (2022) 0.04 
    0.040477425 = product of:
  0.08095485 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=1146,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=1146,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This study focuses on cataloging quality and how it is defined by information professionals, specifically university library catalogers. Although there is no single and objective definition of 'cataloging quality,' research aims to specify its core characteristics. The goal is to define the modern cataloging environment, as well as the tools and opportunities it provides, and to improve the success of academic library services for both professional catalogers and users, who are the final consumers of the information. Regarding methodology, a sample survey was chosen. The survey results revealed that the quality of cataloging is determined by several factors, including technical features of the data, adherence to standards, the cataloging process, user satisfaction, and the development of a general quality culture.
  3. Dobreski, B.: Common usage as warrant in bibliographic description (2020) 0.04 
    0.04017923 = product of:
  0.08035846 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=5708,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=5708,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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.
  4. 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) 0.04 
    0.03509516 = product of:
  0.07019032 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=93,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  5. Behrens, R.: Version 1.1 der RNAB erschienen (2022) 0.02 
    0.023472156 = product of:
  0.093888626 = sum of:
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=803,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 803, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=803)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Mailtext: "die Arbeitsgruppe RNAB des Standardisierungsausschusses freut sich, die Aktualisierung der 2019 erstmals veröffentlichten "Ressourcenerschließung mit Normdaten für Archive und Bibliotheken, (RNAB)" vorzulegen. Die hier präsentierte Version 1.1 ist keine grundsätzlich neue Fassung dieses Regelwerks. Es wurden überwiegend kleine Korrekturen und Ergänzungen im Text vorgenommen. Größere Veränderungen gibt es lediglich bei der stärkeren Abgrenzung des Werkbegriffs gegenüber der RDA und beim kontrollierten Vokabular. Schließlich behandelt das Regelwerk nunmehr die Nachlassbibliotheken als eigenständigen Sammelschwerpunkt. Sie finden die aktualisiert Version 1.1 auf der Website der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek unter DNB - Standards<https://www.dnb.de/DE/Professionell/Standardisierung/Standards/standards_node.html>. Um die Änderungen leichter nachvollziehen zu können, wird zusätzlich eine Fassung mit Markierungen zur Verfügung gestellt. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat der Aktualisierung in seiner Sitzung im Dezember 2021 zugestimmt und die RNAB zur Anwendung empfohlen. Ein besonderer Dank geht an das Redaktionsteam der RNAB: Martin Wedl (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek), Ralf Breslau (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin) und Rudolf Probst (Schweizerische Nationalbibliothek)."
  6. Morris, V.: Automated language identification of bibliographic resources (2020) 0.02 
    0.02052752 = product of:
  0.04105504 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5749, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5749)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 5749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=5749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  7. Hjoerland, B.: Bibliographical control (2023) 0.02 
    0.019621588 = product of:
  0.039243177 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=1131,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2023-4/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-50-2023-heft-4.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.4, S.301 - 315
  8. Schwarz, S.: Kompetenzvermittlung digital : how to ... RDA? : Konzeption eines digitalen Lernangebots an der Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln (2021) 0.02 
    0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=380,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 380, 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=380)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die Universitäts- und Stadtbibliothek Köln stellt im Zuge der Coronapandemie und der dadurch beschleunigten Digitalisierungsprozesse ihr universitätsinternes Präsenzschulungsangebot zum Regelwerk RDA auf ein digitales Kursangebot um. Dafür wurden Inhalte, Struktur und Ablauf der bisherigen RDA-Schulungen bedarfsorientiert angepasst, aktualisiert, reorganisiert und anhand mediendidaktischer Standards digital aufbereitet. Der neu entstandene E-Learning-Kurs "How to ... RDA?" bietet ein rein digitales RDA-Lernformat mit dem Fokus auf Flexibilität, Praxisnähe und unterschiedliche Lernbedürfnisse.
  9. Aitchison, C.R.: Cataloging virtual reality artworks: challenges and future prospects (2021) 0.02 
    0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 711, 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=711)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In 2019, Pepperdine Libraries acquired two virtual reality artworks by filmmaker and artist Paisley Smith: Homestay and Unceded Territories. To bring awareness to these pieces, Pepperdine Libraries added these works to the library catalog, creating bibliographic records for both films. There were many challenges and considerations in cataloging virtual reality art, including factors such as the nature of the work, the limits found in Resource Description and Access (RDA) and MARC, and providing access to these works. This paper discusses these topics, as well as provides recommendations for potential future standards for cataloging virtual works.
  10. Das, S.; Paik, J.H.: Gender tagging of named entities using retrieval-assisted multi-context aggregation : an unsupervised approach (2023) 0.02 
    0.019165486 = product of:
  0.038330972 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=941,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 941, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=941)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  11. Schrader, A.: ORCID DE 2 erfolgreich beendet (2022) 0.02 
    0.016597321 = product of:
  0.066389285 = sum of:
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 828) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=828,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 828, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=828)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    "Zum 30. November 2022 wurde das Projekt ORCID DE 2 erfolgreich beendet. Das Projekt wurde in zwei Förderphasen ( <http://doi.org/10.2312/lis.16.01> 2016 bis 2019 und <https://doi.org/10.2312/lis.20.01> 2020 bis 2022) von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) gefördert und von der Deutschen Initiative für Netzwerkinformation (DINI) initiiert. ORCID spielt auf der Ebene nationaler Standards, wie dem DINI-Zertifikat und dem Kerndatensatz Forschung (KDSF), aber auch auf lokaler Ebene in den wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen eine zentrale Rolle. Die Notwendigkeit und der Nutzen von Persistent Identifiern zur dauerhaft verlässlichen Identifizierung der mit Forschungsprozessen verknüpften Ressourcen, der Akteure und ihrer Forschungsprodukte wird anhand von ORCID besonders deutlich. Was im Projekt erreicht wurde und wie es nach Ende des Projektes weiter geht, lesen Sie in folgendem Blogpost: https://www.orcid-de.org/support/blogbeitraege/projekt-orcid-de-2-erfolgreich-beendet Die Mailingliste "ORCID DE Dialog" (<https://www.listserv.dfn.de/sympa/subscribe/orcid-de-dialog?previous_action=info> hier zu abonnieren) bleibt für den Austausch aller ORCID-Interessierten weiterhin geöffnet."
  12. Miksa, S.D.: Cataloging principles and objectives : history and development (2021) 0.02 
    0.015770756 = product of:
  0.03154151 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Cataloging principles and objectives guide the formation of cataloging rules governing the organization of information within the library catalog, as well as the function of the catalog itself. Changes in technologies wrought by the internet and the web have been the driving forces behind shifting cataloging practice and reconfigurations of cataloging rules. Modern cataloging principles and objectives started in 1841 with the creation of Panizzi's 91 Rules for the British Museum and gained momentum with Charles Cutter's Rules for Descriptive Cataloging (1904). The first Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) was adopted in 1961, holding their place through such codifications as AACR and AACR2 in the 1970s and 1980s. Revisions accelerated starting in 2003 with the three original FR models. The Library Reference Model (LRM) in 2017 acted as a catalyst for the evolution of principles and objectives culminating in the creation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2013.
  13. Kim, J.(im); Kim, J.(enna): Effect of forename string on author name disambiguation (2020) 0.01 
    0.0128297005 = product of:
  0.025659401 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5930, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5930)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 5930) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=5930,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    11. 7.2020 13:22:58
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.7, S.839-855
  14. Zhang, L.; Lu, W.; Yang, J.: LAGOS-AND : a large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation (2023) 0.01 
    0.0128297005 = product of:
  0.025659401 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:40:36
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.2, S.168-185
  15. Soos, C.; Leazer, H.H.: Presentations of authorship in knowledge organization (2020) 0.01 
    0.009895581 = product of:
  0.039582323 = sum of:
    0.039582323 = product of:
      0.07916465 = sum of:
        0.07916465 = weight(_text_:organization in 21) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07916465 = score(doc=21,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44041592 = fieldWeight in 21, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=21)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The "author" is a concept central to many publication and documentation practices, often carrying legal, professional, social, and personal importance. Typically viewed as the solitary owner of their creations, a person is held responsible for their work and positioned to receive the praise and criticism that may emerge in its wake. Although the role of the individual within creative production is undeniable, literary (Foucault 1977; Bloom 1997) and knowledge organization (Moulaison et. al. 2014) theorists have challenged the view that the work of one person can-or should-be fully detached from their professional and personal networks. As these relationships often provide important context and reveal the role of community in the creation of new things, their absence from catalog records presents a falsely simplified view of the creative process. Here, we address the consequences of what we call the "author-asowner" concept and suggest that an "author-as-node" approach, which situates an author within their networks of influence, may allow for more relational representation within knowledge organization systems, a framing that emphasizes rather than erases the messy complexities that affect the production of new objects and ideas.
    Content
    Part of a special issue: The politics of knowledge organization, Part 2; guest editors: Robert D. Montoya and Gregory H. Leazer. DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-486.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.6, S.486-500
  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) 0.00 
    0.00424829 = product of:
  0.01699316 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 1183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=1183,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1183, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1183)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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. Pooja, K.M.; Mondal, S.; Chandra, J.: ¬A graph combination with edge pruning-based approach for author name disambiguation (2020) 0.00 
    0.0037164795 = product of:
  0.014865918 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 59) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=59,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 59, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=59)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Author name disambiguation (AND) is a challenging problem due to several issues such as missing key identifiers, same name corresponding to multiple authors, along with inconsistent representation. Several techniques have been proposed but maintaining consistent accuracy levels over all data sets is still a major challenge. We identify two major issues associated with the AND problem. First, the namesake problem in which two or more authors with the same name publishes in a similar domain. Second, the diverse topic problem in which one author publishes in diverse topical domains with a different set of coauthors. In this work, we initially propose a method named ATGEP for AND that addresses the namesake issue. We evaluate the performance of ATGEP using various ambiguous name references collected from the Arnetminer Citation (AC) and Web of Science (WoS) data set. We empirically show that the two aforementioned problems are crucial to address the AND problem that are difficult to handle using state-of-the-art techniques. To handle the diverse topic issue, we extend ATGEP to a new variant named ATGEP-web that considers external web information of the authors. Experiments show that with enough information available from external web sources ATGEP-web can significantly improve the results further compared with ATGEP.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 71(2020) no.1, S.69-83
  18. Zakaria, M.S.: Measuring typographical errors in online catalogs of academic libraries using Ballard's list : a case study from Egypt (2023) 0.00 
    0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=1184,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  19. Perera, T.: Description specialists and inclusive description work and/or initiatives : an exploratory study (2022) 0.00 
    0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=974,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 974, 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=974)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper presents preliminary findings from an exploratory research study investigating the education, Library and Information Science (LIS) work experiences, and demographics of description specialists engaging in inclusive description work and/or initiatives. Survey results represent participants' education background, LIS work experiences, motivations behind projects and initiatives, areas of work and types of project priorities, preferred outcomes, and challenges encountered while engaging in inclusive description work and/or initiatives. Findings also point to gaps in understanding related to cultural concepts. A participant-created definition for inclusive description is a successful outcome of the study.
  20. Corbara, S.; Moreo, A.; Sebastiani, F.: Syllabic quantity patterns as rhythmic features for Latin authorship attribution (2023) 0.00 
    0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=846)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 74(2023) no.1, S.128-141

Authors

Languages

  • e 20
  • d 3

Types

Themes

Subjects

Classifications