Search (162 results, page 2 of 9)

  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. Buckland, M.: Document theory (2018) 0.03 
    0.029958814 = product of:
  0.05991763 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=4536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 4536, 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=4536)
    0.04292447 = product of:
      0.08584894 = sum of:
        0.08584894 = weight(_text_:organization in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08584894 = score(doc=4536,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 4536, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Document theory examines the concept of a document and how it can serve with other concepts to understand communication, documentation, information, and knowledge. Knowledge organization itself is in practice based on the arrangement of documents representing concepts and knowledge. The word "document" commonly refers to a text or graphic record, but, in a semiotic perspective, non-graphic objects can also be regarded as signifying and, therefore, as documents. The steady increase in the variety and number of documents since prehistoric times enables the development of communities, the division of labor, and reduction of the constraints of space and time. Documents are related to data, facts, texts, works, information, knowledge, signs, and other documents. Documents have physical (material), cognitive, and social aspects.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.5, S.425-436
  2. Vellucci, S.L.: Future catalogues : essential colleagues or anachronisms? (1996) 0.03 
    0.027893947 = product of:
  0.055787895 = sum of:
    0.027465092 = weight(_text_:information in 5748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027465092 = score(doc=5748,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 5748, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5748)
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 5748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=5748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 5748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Examines the future of the cataloguer in an increasingly electronic environment arguing that this future will depend on adopting a more holistic approach that broadens the concept from cataloguing to the organization of information. If the goal of libraries is to provide access to information it is the organizational tools created by cataloguers that help meet this goal. Cataloguers must be aware of the potential uses of information and how it may be exploited and administrators must capitalize on cataloguers' expertise when information systems based on their work are developed
  3. Meßmer, G.; Müller, M.: Standards in der Formalerschließung gedruckter und elektronischer Ressourcen (2015) 0.03 
    0.0276622 = product of:
  0.1106488 = sum of:
    0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 1143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1106488 = score(doc=1143,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 1143, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1143)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  4. Olson, H.A.: Thinking professionals : teaching critical cataloguing (1997) 0.03 
    0.027384182 = product of:
  0.10953673 = sum of:
    0.10953673 = weight(_text_:standards in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10953673 = score(doc=664,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.4874794 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Cataloguing education has been the focus of definition and ebate for over a century. Moving beyond cataloguing theory and the creation of records, to the management and process of producing catalogues, increases the complexity of demands placed on professionals and educators. Graduates need to understand their catalogues and integrated systems holistically. This requires a knowledge of each element, of standards governing the creation and maintenance of records, and of the relationship between the record and the catalogue and/or its constituent network. Moreover, the professional must know these things critically, and beyond mere acceptance of standards, so that the catalogue can effectively perform its mediating function between the collection and users
  5. Managing cataloging and the organization of information : philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century (2000) 0.03 
    0.02734881 = product of:
  0.05469762 = sum of:
    0.006007989 = weight(_text_:information in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006007989 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.06788416 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
    0.048689634 = sum of:
      0.024782453 = weight(_text_:organization in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024782453 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.13787198 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.023907183 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023907183 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in ZfBB 51(2004) H.1, S.54-55 (G. Pflug): "Unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der Informationstechnologie auf den Bibliotheksbereich nimmt die Katalogisierung eine Schlüsselstellung ein. Das vorliegende Werk gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Der erste Abschnitt ist mit »National Libraries« überschrieben, befasst sich jedoch nur mit der Library of Congress und der National Library of Canada. Ihm folgen Artikel über »Libraries around the world«. Dabei fälltjedoch auf, dass diese Studien zwar Bibliotheken in Großbritannien, Australien, Mittel- und Südamerika und selbst Afrika (Botswana) behandeln, nicht jedoch aus Kontinentaleuropa, trotz entsprechender Aktivitäten etwa in den Niederlanden, in Frankreich oder den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Nur DOBIS/LIBIS wird erwähnt, aber nur, weil es für kurze Zeit die kanadische Entwicklung beeinflusst hat. Im zweiten Teil kommen Katalogisierungsfachleute aus vier Spezial- und neun akademischen Bibliotheken - ausschließlich aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien - zu Wort. So enthält das Werk in 22 Beispielen Berichte über individuelle und regionale Lösungen. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, zu welchen Änderungen in der Katalogisierungs- und Sacherschließungspraxis die neuen elektronischen Techniken geführt haben. So streben z.B. die englischen Hochschulbibliotheken ein koordiniertes System an. Mit dem Übergang der British Library zu MARC 21 wird das Katalogsystem in Großbritannien nachhaltig beeinflusst - um nur zwei nahe liegende Beispiele zu nennen. Insgesamt werden drei Aspekte behandelt, die Automatisierungstechnik; die dabei einzusetzende Kooperation und das Outsourcing - nicht nur durch Übernahme von Daten anderer Bibliotheken oder durch Verbundsysteme, vor allem der Library of Congress, sondern auch durch Buchhandelsfirmen wie Blackwell North America Authority Control Service. In der Frage der Sacherschließung befassen sich die Beiträge mit den im amerikanischen Bereich üblichen Klassifikationssystemen, vor allem der Colon Classification, Dewey in seinen beiden Formen oder der Library of Congress Classification. Für die deutsche Diskussion sind diese Aspekte vor allem wegen des Übergangs der Deutschen Bibliothek in ihrer Nationalbibliografie zur DDC von großem Interesse (vgl. Magda Heiner-Freiling: Die DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. In Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 15. 2003, Nr. 3, S. 8-13). Doch stellen auch die unterschiedlichen Überlegungen zur alphabetischen Katalogisierung, verbunden mit den da zugehörigen Datenbanken, einen interessanten Beitrag zur augenblicklichen Diskussion in Deutschland dar, da auch hier seit einigen Jahren die Katalogisierung nach RAK und ihre Ablösung eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst hat, wie unter anderem der zusammenfassende Beitrag von Elisabeth Niggemann in: Dialog mit Bibliotheken (15. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 4-8) zeigt. Auch die angloamerikanischen und die mit ihnen zum Beispiel in Mexiko, Südamerika oder Australien verbundenen Bibliotheken - das zeigt das Buch deutlich - diskutieren die Frage der alphabetischen Katalogisierung kontrovers. So werden z.B. neben den dominanten AACR-Regeln mit ihrer Weiterentwicklung mehr als zehn andere Katalogisierungssysteme und rund 20 Online-Datenbanken behandelt. Damit liefert das Buch für die Diskussion in Deutschland und die anstehenden Entscheidungen in seiner Grundtendenz wie in den unterschiedlichen-auch widersprüchlichen-Aspekten dereinzelnen Beiträge wertvolle Anregungen."
  6. Julien, C.-A.; Guastavino, C.; Bouthillier, F.: Capitalizing on information organization and information visualization for a new-generation catalogue (2012) 0.02 
    0.024926076 = product of:
  0.04985215 = sum of:
    0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019191816 = score(doc=5567,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 5567, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5567)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=5567,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 5567, 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=5567)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Subject searching is difficult with traditional text-based online public access library catalogues (OPACs), and the next-generation discovery layers are keyword searching and result filtering tools that offer little support for subject browsing. Next-generation OPACs ignore the rich network of relations offered by controlled subject vocabulary, which can facilitate subject browsing. A new generation of OPACs could leverage existing information-organization investments and offer online searchers a novel browsing and searching environment. This is a case study of the design and development of a virtual reality subject browsing and information retrieval tool. The functional prototype shows that the Library of Congress subject headings (LCSH) can be shaped into a useful and usable tree structure serving as a visual metaphor that contains a real world collection from the domain of science and engineering. Formative tests show that users can effectively browse the LCSH tree and carve it up based on their keyword search queries. This study uses a complex information-organization structure as a defining characteristic of an OPAC that goes beyond the standard keyword search model, toward the cutting edge of online search tools.
  7. Theimer, S.: ¬A cataloger's resolution to become more creative : how and why (2012) 0.02 
    0.024344817 = product of:
  0.09737927 = sum of:
    0.09737927 = sum of:
      0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049564905 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
      0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047814365 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Creativity is now a core requirement for successful organizations. Libraries, like all organizations, need to produce and utilize new ideas to improve user service and experiences. With changes in cataloging such as Resource Description and Access (RDA), the opportunity to rethink cataloging practices is here now. Everyone has creative potential, although catalogers may have both a personality and work environment that make it more difficult. To be able to maximize creative capacity, catalogers need the proper work environment, support from their organization, and a plan for accomplishing creative goals. Given that environment, catalogers may create ideas that will shape the future. (RDA).
    Date
    29. 5.2015 11:08:22
  8. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.02 
    0.023409493 = product of:
  0.046818987 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=101,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 101, 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=101)
    0.028979883 = product of:
      0.057959765 = sum of:
        0.057959765 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057959765 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    19. 6.2010 19:22:28
  9. Report on the future of bibliographic control : draft for public comment (2007) 0.02 
    0.022904396 = product of:
  0.045808792 = sum of:
    0.012614149 = weight(_text_:information in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012614149 = score(doc=1271,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.14252704 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.033194643 = weight(_text_:standards in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033194643 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.14772856 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
    The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.
  10. Lee, H.-L.; Clyde, J.: Users' perspectives of the "Collection" and the online catalogue (2004) 0.02 
    0.022303218 = product of:
  0.044606436 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=2654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The paper reports an a study that examined the parameters provided in the online catalogue of a university library for defining its collection and subcollections that would facilitate information seeking. Taking a user-centered approach, the study asked two questions: (1) Does the online catalogue provide a useful collection structure for the users? (2) Are there any parameters that are considered useful by the users for structuring the collection absent from the online catalogue? The online catalogue was found to adequately provide only a few of the user collection and subcollection parameters, including user privilege and document type. However, it lacked most of the important parameters required by the users, including catalogue representation of the entire collection and disciplinary categories for defining subject subcollections.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  11. Tennant, R.: 21st century cataloguing (1998) 0.02 
    0.022129761 = product of:
  0.088519044 = sum of:
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 2584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=2584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 2584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2584)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Observes how traditional cataloguing differs from the use of metadata to describe the materials in a digital library. Introduces the 3 categories of metadata that have been identified: descriptive (also called intellectual), structural, and administrative. Notes that MARC only deals well with intellectual metadata. Discusses some emerging standards that may be to digital libraries what MARC was to print libraries, the best of these being the Dublin Core
  12. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs, symbols,and canons : The epistemology of the work (2001) 0.02 
    0.020920461 = product of:
  0.041840922 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=1119,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 1119, 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=1119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 28(2001) no.4, S.192-202
  13. Morgan, E.L.: Possible solutions for incorporating digital information mediums into traditional library cataloging services (1996) 0.02 
    0.020450171 = product of:
  0.040900342 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=600,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, 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=600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article first compares and contrasts the essential, fundamental differences between traditional and digital information mediums. It then reexamines the role of the online public access catalog (OPAC), refines the definition of library's catalog, and advocates the addition of Internet resources within the OPAC. Next, the article describes the building of the Alex Catalog, a catalog of Internet resources in the in the form of MARC records. Finally, this article outlines a process of integrating the futher inclusion of other Internet resources into OPACs as well as some of the obstacles such a process manifests.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170
  14. McMillan, G.: Electronic theses and dissertations : merging perspectives (1996) 0.02 
    0.020450171 = product of:
  0.040900342 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=601,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 601, 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=601)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 601, 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=601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Theses and dissertations as electronic files transferred from the student author to the Graduate School to the Library may well be the first major source of electronic texts that many libraries encounter. To prepare for this potential influx of electronic texts, an ad hoc task force considered work flow and cataloging guidelines. The author suggests expanding current theses cataloging and taking advantage of online information prepared by authors so that the bibliographic records provide OPACS with much more valuable information than does traditional theses cataloging. This should not require a lot of extra work.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.105-125
  15. Lunau, C.D.: ¬The virtual Canadian union catalogue pilot project : a partnership between libraries and vendors (1998) 0.02 
    0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 4638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=4638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 4638, 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=4638)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Explains the background to resource sharing as it has developed in Canada. Descrbes the vCuc (virtual Canadian union catalogue pilot project) which is being completed under the umbrella of the national resource sharing strategy. Lists the goals of the project, the main one being to demonstrate the feasibility of using Z39.50 standards to emulate a centralized union catalogue, and the challenge and issues to project gave rise to. Discusses the pros and cons of Z39.50 and the aereas where it needs development and, most importantly, integration into vendor systems
  16. Bianchini, C.; Guerrini, M.: From bibliographic models to cataloguing rules : remarks on FRBR, ICP, ISBD, and RDA and the relationships between them (2009) 0.02 
    0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 2973, 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=2973)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article discusses the changes that are occurring in the world of cataloguing. It argues that these changes need to be coordinated. It also discusses the feature of current OPACs, FRBR, the Paris Principles and its proposed replacement (ICP), AACR2 and its proposed replacement (RDA), ISBD, and the relationships between and among these standards. It argues that the syntax of ISBD is an essential component of RDA and all future international and national cataloguing codes.
  17. Panchyshyn, R.S.; Park, A.L.: Resource Description and Access (RDA) database enrichment : the path to a hybridized catalog (2015) 0.02 
    0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 2017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=2017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 2017, 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=2017)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This article examines the benefits of a Resource Description and Access (RDA) enrichment project for libraries. Enrichment projects "hybridize", or enrich legacy Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition (AACR2) bibliographic records with RDA data. Until a replacement for MARC is developed, bibliographic data will continue to be encoded in MARC 21 in many integrated library systems. Library catalogs contain records coded under both AACR2 and RDA standards. RDA enrichment projects benefit the patron experience because the data is cleaner and more consistent for patron use and display, cataloging staff workflows are simplified, and the consistency of the data is advantageous for system development and data exchange with other communities
  18. Schultz-Jones, B.; Snow, K.; Miksa, S.; Hasenyager Jr., R.L.: Historical and current implications of cataloguing quality for next-generation catalogues (2012) 0.02 
    0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 5558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=5558,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 5558, 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=5558)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Discussions of quality in library cataloguing are traced from early library science literature to current debates. Three studies that examine dimensions of quality cataloguing in academic libraries, public libraries, and school libraries and a review of vendor processes update the issues surrounding a definition of bibliographic record quality and quality assurance processes. The implications of perceptions of bibliographic record quality on next-generation catalogues are presented with emphasis on the shift in the cataloguer's judgment from rigid standards for transcription to meeting the requirement for more metadata that matches the user need of find-ability.
  19. Enhancing access to information : designing catalogs for the 21st century (1992) 0.02 
    0.018446784 = product of:
  0.03689357 = sum of:
    0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 1009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019191816 = score(doc=1009,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 1009, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1009)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 1009) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=1009,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 1009, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1009)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: TYCKOSON, D.A.: Enhancing access to information: building catalogs for the future; TYCKOSON, D.A.: The twenty-first century limited: desinging catalogs for the next century; DWYER, J.: Bibliographic records enhancement: from the drawing board to the catalog screen; SYRACUSE, R.O. u. R.K. POYER: Enhancing access to the library's collections: a view from an academic health center library; STUDWELL, W.E.: Of eggs and baskets: getting more access out of LC Subject Headings in an online environment; STEPHENS, I.E.: Getting more out of call numbers: displaying holdings, locations and circulation status; MICCO, M.: The next generation of online public access catalogs: a new look at subject access using hypermedia; SLOAN, B.G.: Remote access: design implications for the online catalog; ENGEL, G.: User instruction for access to catalogs and database on the Internet; BARNES, S. u. J. McCUE: Linking library records to bibliographic databases: an analysis of common data elements in BIOSIS, Agricola and the OPAC; HARWOOD, R.: Adding a nonlibrary campus collection to the library database; CARTER, K., H. OLSEN u. S. AQUILA: Bulk loading of records for microform sets into the online catalogue; DYKEMAN, A. u. J. ZIMMERMAN: The Georgia Institute of Technology Electronic Library: issues to consider; MOLHOLT, P. u. K. FORSYTHE: Opening up information access through the electronic catalog
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Canadian journal of information and library science 1993, no. April, S.81-82 (D. Mattison); Library review 42(1993) S.48-49 (D. Anderson); Australian academic and research libraries 1993, no. March, S.55-56 (J.S. Goodell); Library resources and technical services 1993, no.1, S.102 (R.P. Holley); Knowledge organization 20(1993) no.4, S.231-232 (P.A. Cochrane); Information processing and management 33(1997) no.4, S.573-575 (C.R. Hildreth)
  20. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs and canons : towards an epistemology of the work (2000) 0.02 
    0.0182105 = product of:
  0.036421 = sum of:
    0.011892734 = weight(_text_:information in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011892734 = score(doc=134,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
    0.024528269 = product of:
      0.049056537 = sum of:
        0.049056537 = weight(_text_:organization in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049056537 = score(doc=134,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27291575 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Works and items form documentary entities-packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. As such, works demonstrate the characteristics of signs and symbols. Further, works may have membership in a canon. A taxonomic definition of the work is presented, which encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities. Works and items are joined variously to form documentary entities--packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. A work may have many texts, and may appear in many documents and even in many documentary forms. Marco and Navarro (1993) have suggested that epistemological analysis of the paradigms of knowledge are essential for the design and implementation of cognitive strategies to guide documentary analysis. Such is the case with the understanding of the work component of the documentary entity. Marco and Navarro also assert the usefulness of taxonomy as a key element of the epistemological analysis of paradigms. Works have been variously defined in the literature of information science, knowledge organization, linguistics, musicology, and literary criticism, among others. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. In this paper a taxonomic definition of the work is presented. This definition encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.7
    Source
    Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 125
  • d 26
  • f 4
  • sp 2
  • a 1
  • chi 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 141
  • el 12
  • m 8
  • r 6
  • s 5
  • b 3
  • x 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications