Search (92 results, page 1 of 5)

0.08483097 = product of:
  0.11310796 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=3083,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
    0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07824052 = score(doc=3083,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 3083, 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=3083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Authority control is a quite recent term in the long history of cataloguing, although the underlying principle is among the very early principles of bibliographic control. Bibliographic control is a Field in transformation by the rapid expansion of the WWW, which has brought new problems to infonnation discovery and retrieval, creating new challenges and requirements in information management. In a comprehensive approach, authority control is presented as one of the most promising library activities in this respect. The evolution of work methods and standards for the sharing of authority files is reviewed, showing the imbalance in developments and practical achievements between name and subject authority, in an international perspective. The need to improve the network availability and usability of authority information assets in more effective and holistic ways is underlyned; and a new philosophy and scope is proposed for library authority work, based an the primacy of the linking function of authority data, and by expanding the finding, relating and informing functions of authority records. Some of these aspects are being addressed in several projects dealing with knowledge organization systems, notably to cope with multilingual needs and to enable semantic interoperability among different systems. Library practice itself should evolve in the same direction, thereby providing practical experience to inform new or improved principles and standards for authority work, while contributing to enhance local information services and to promote their involvement in the WWW environment.

Source

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

0.07589395 = product of:
  0.1517879 = sum of:
    0.117099695 = weight(_text_:standards in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.117099695 = score(doc=3876,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5211374 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
    0.03468821 = product of:
      0.06937642 = sum of:
        0.06937642 = weight(_text_:organization in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06937642 = score(doc=3876,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38596115 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.06387309 = product of:
  0.08516412 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=5669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=5669,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 5669, 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=5669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Today's electronic catalogue makes retrieval of specific records very simple and quick in most (not all) cases, but searches aimed at the reliable retrieval of all material answering a well-defined need (author, work, theme, form, etc.) are still long and tiring, and sometimes impossible, in crowded bibliographic databases. In spite of its great relevance, authority control has been and still is the "poor relative" of cataloguing, the often neglected or overlooked "other half" if we compare it to the creation of bibliographic records. The FRBR study and the new authority control standards (GARR and UNIMARC Authorities) are important steps towards future perspectives. Even today, cataloguing codes do not make clear the difference between the access points for bibliographic records and the relationships (work-to-work, author-to-work, etc.) that are independent from spoecific publications. With the development of richer authority records and relationships, the bibliographic record might be relieved of information related to entities different from publications and of all the functions more suitably worked out upstream or downstream in access systems or by links to the images and/or the texts of the publications themselves. A "light" bibliographic record would no longer be the paramount component of library information systems; it would keep its central role rather as nimble, swift turntable between access and content organization systems and systems for management and display of digital resources themselves.

0.05792077 = product of:
  0.11584154 = sum of:
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.04473507 = product of:
  0.08947014 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=2976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2976, 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=2976)
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=2976,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 2976, 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=2976)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Neither the standards nor the software underlying institutional repositories anticipated performing name authority control on widely disparate metadata from highly unreliable sources. Without it, though, both machines and humans are stymied in their efforts to access and aggregate information by author. Many organizations are awakening to the problems and possibilities of name authority control, but without better coordination, their efforts will only confuse matters further. Local heuristics-based name-disambiguation software may help those repository managers who can implement it. For the time being, however, most repository managers can only control their own name lists as best they can after deposit while they advocate for better systems and services.

0.03620048 = product of:
  0.07240096 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 190, 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=190)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, 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=190)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.03620048 = product of:
  0.07240096 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 191, 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=191)
    0.01707656 = product of:
      0.03415312 = sum of:
        0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03415312 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 191, 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=191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

International efforts to provide authority control include the work of IFLA, the AUTHOR Project funded by the European Commission, and related work conducted under the auspices of the ICA/CDS. IFLA developed the guidelines Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, documented the formulation of names along the lines of national origin in its publication Names of Persons, and published Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries. Attention has shifted from a single authority record for each entity that would be shared internationally through the exchange of records to linking parallel authority records for the same entity. The access control of the future will account for difference in cataloging rules, transliteration standards, and cultural differences within the same language as well as for the need for different languages and scripts and will enable users to display the script and form of a heading that they expect. Project AUTHOR is a shared set of resource national authority files that used selections from the authority files of France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. The prototype tested an adaptation of Z39.50 server software for authority records and displays for user interface. An international standard for authority control records has been developed for corporate bodies, persons, and families. Through joint meetings efforts have been synchronized to develop authority control at the international level.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.035188597 = product of:
  0.07037719 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 3505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=3505,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3505, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3505)
    0.049564905 = product of:
      0.09912981 = sum of:
        0.09912981 = weight(_text_:organization in 3505) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09912981 = score(doc=3505,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5514879 = fieldWeight in 3505, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3505)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber

0.03249585 = product of:
  0.0649917 = sum of:
    0.034331363 = weight(_text_:information in 5490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034331363 = score(doc=5490,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.38790947 = fieldWeight in 5490, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5490)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 5490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=5490,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 5490, 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=5490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

We aim to trace the scenario of the use of controlled vocabularies as tools of research and work in the scope of representation and retrieval of information in institutions that have archival collections, in order to highlight the need for greater emphasis on the subject of representation of archival information in the academic field, increasing the visibility for the study and analysis of the collections in question and their contents, relevant to the information society. We investigate the current scenario of the use of controlled vocabularies in the archival collections of Rio de Janeiro, the theoretical-methodological changes arising from the impacts of information technologies on analysis, representation, such as classification and indexing, content retrieval, information needs in the contemporary world. The representation of information is associated with classification and retrieval of information to the organization of knowledge in information science. There is a gap in the archival area regarding the expression representation of information from the description of the nineteenth century. As for the theoretical-methodological aspect, there was a theoretical survey of the representation of information in publications in the interdisciplinary areas; as to the op-erational methodology, questionnaires were applied to information agencies on the use of controlled vocabularies, in relation to the treatment of information in archival collections. We conclude by demonstrating the importance of adopting the concept of information representation in archives, using controlled vocabularies associated with new information technologies and informational ecology, consolidating the area as a scientific and interdisciplinary field for information science.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue on Archival Knowledge Organization

Source

Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.7, S.548-557

0.030850176 = product of:
  0.06170035 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=2293,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2293, 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=2293)
    0.046834435 = product of:
      0.09366887 = sum of:
        0.09366887 = weight(_text_:organization in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09366887 = score(doc=2293,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.52110714 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

We illustrate the principle of unified treatment of all authority data for any kind of entities, subjects/topics, places, events, persons, organizations, etc. through the design and implementation of an enriched authority database for organizations, maintained as an integral part of an authority database that also includes subject authority control / classification data, using the same structures for data and common modules for processing and display of data. Organization-related data are stored in information systems of many companies. We specifically examine the case of the World Bank Group (WBG) according to organization role: suppliers, partners, customers, competitors, authors, publishers, or subjects of documents, loan recipients, suppliers for WBG-funded projects and subunits of the organization itself. A central organization authority where each organization is identified by a URI, represented by several names and linked to other organizations through hierarchical and other relationships serves to link data from these disparate information systems. Designing the conceptual structure of a unified authority database requires integrating SKOS, the W3C Organization Ontology and other schemes into one comprehensive ontology. To populate the authority database with organizations, we import data from external sources (e.g., DBpedia and Library of Congress authorities) and internal sources (e.g., the lists of organizations from multiple WBG information systems).

0.027672652 = product of:
  0.055345304 = sum of:
    0.007432959 = weight(_text_:information in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007432959 = score(doc=3691,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
    0.047912344 = weight(_text_:standards in 3691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047912344 = score(doc=3691,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21322784 = fieldWeight in 3691, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3691)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Mit großer Spannung wurde der Vortrag von Elisabeth Niggemann und Reiner Diedrichs über das weitere Vorgehen nach Abschluss des Projekts »Umstieg auf internationale Formate und Regelwerke (MARC21, AACR2)« erwartet. Unter dem programmatischen Titel »Hinter dem Horizont geht es weiter« stellten der Vorsitzende der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme und die Generaldirektorin Der Deutschen Bibliothek vor, wie die Internationalisierung der deutschen Standards im Einzelnen aussehen soll, und welche Maßnahmen erforderlich sind. Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme hatte in ihrer Herbstsitzung 2004 verschiedene Beschlüsse getroffen, welche die Zusammenarbeit der Verbundsysteme fördern und erleichtern sollen. Dazu gehören u. a. die Entwicklung eines prototypischen Verfahrens für einen Neukatalogisierungsdienst mit einheitlichen Datenstrukturen und einheitlichen Formatanwendungen, die Verwendung von MARC21 als einheitlichem Austauschformat und die Entwicklung eines Matchkey-Verfahrens zur verbundübergreifenden Titelerkennung. Außerdem wurden grundsätzliche Anforderungen an das künftige Regelwerk und für eine Reorganisation der Normdatenarbeit formuliert, die die Ziele der Arbeitsgemeinschaft effektiv unterstützen sollen. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat diese Beschlüsse in seiner 9. Sitzung im Dezember 2004 begrüßt, bestätigt und konkretisiert. Nun gilt es, die Beschlüsse zügig umzusetzen, um die gesteckten Ziele zu verfolgen: einfacher Zugang zu bibliografischer Information national wie international für wissenschaftliche und andere persönliche Nutzer, leichte Austauschbarkeit von bibliografischer Information zwischen professionellen Benutzergruppen und Anwendern und last but not least Kostenreduktion bei der Erschließung. Im Anschluss stellte Renate Gömpel, Die Deutsche Bibliothek, die IFLA-CDNL Allianz für Bibliografische Standards (ICABS) vor, die während des Weltkongresses Bibliothek und Information in Berlin als ein neues strategisches Vorhaben ins Leben gerufen wurde. Mit ICABS streben die National Library of Australia, die Library of Congress, die British Library, die Koninklijke Bibliotheek der Niederlande und Die Deutsche Bibliothek gemeinsam mit der Biblioteca Nacional Portugals, der IFLA und der Conference of Directors of National Libraries (CDNL) die Fortsetzung und Unterstützung von Schlüsselaktivitäten im Bereich der bibliografischen und der Ressourcenkontrolle sowie damit zusammenhängender Formatstandards an. Die Allianz führt damit die Arbeit der Geschäftsstellen der früheren IFLA-Kernprogramme UBCIM (Universal Bibliographic Control and International MARC) und UDT (Universal Dataflow and Telecommunications) fort. In dem Vortrag wurde ein Überblick über Ziele und Vorhaben von ICABS, ihre Organisation sowie deren Arbeit als Dach für facettenreiche Aktivitäten im Bereich bibliografischer Standards gegeben. Koordiniert wird die Arbeit von ICABS durch das Advisory Board, das aus Vertretern aller beteiligten Institutionen und Organisationen besteht und dessen Vorsitz gegenwärtig ebenso wie das Sekretariat bei Der Deutschen Bibliothek angesiedelt ist. Der Standardisierungsausschuss hat bereits erste Planungen für eine Veranstaltung beim 95. Deutschen Bibliothekartag in Dresden angestellt. Dort soll über den Stand der Internationalisierung des deutschen Regelwerks, den Umstieg auf MARC21 und die Weiterentwicklung der Normdateien berichtet werden. Darüber hinaus erwartet die Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer ein Bericht aus dem Joint Steering Committee for Revision of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (JSC) über den Stand der AACR3. Es wird sicherlich spannend, merken Sie sich diesen Termin vor."

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)

0.025615558 = product of:
  0.10246223 = sum of:
    0.10246223 = weight(_text_:standards in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10246223 = score(doc=230,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.45599523 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Unter dem Thema "Ist Deutschland reif für die internationale Zusammenarbeit?" fand am 11. September 2001 in Göttingen anlässlich der 5. Verbundkonferenz des GBV eine Podiumsdiskussion statt. Der Autor dieses Beitrages berichtet über Eindrücke, die er aus dieser Diskussion gewann. Auf dem Podium waren einige maßgebliche und einflussreiche Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare aus deutschen Bibliotheken und bibliothekarischen Einrichtungen sowie ein Gast vereinigt, die zugleich auch in mehreren für das deutsche Bibliothekswesen maßgeblichen Gremien oder Organisationen mitarbeiten. Es waren dies: Rainer Diedrichs, Leiter der Verbundzentrale des GBV, Ute Schwens, Stellvertreterin der Generaldirektorin der Deutschen Bibliothek, Dr. Ewald Brahms, Geschäftsstelle der DFG, Berndt Dugall, Leiter der Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt /M. als Moderator, Look Costers, Direktor von PICA, Dr. Hermann Leskien, Generaldirektor der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek und Heinz-Werner Hoffmann, Leiter des HBZ. Neben einigen weniger bedeutenden Themen stand vor allem die Frage im Mittelpunkt, ob sich Deutschland von den nationalen Erschließungsstandards verabschieden und den internationalen, also AACR2 und MARC, anschließen solle. Die Diskussion ergab eigentlich gar keine kontroversen Ansichten und verlief etwa in vier Schritten: 1."Alle auf dem Podium bestätigten, dass sie persönlich für einen Wechsel seien. 2."Es wurden einige Probleme genannt, die einem Kurswechsel entgegen stehen könnten. Dazu gehörten: Die Podiumsteilnehmer könnten nicht für die Gremien sprechen, deren Mitglieder sie seien. Man müsse einen bundesweiten Konsens mit allen Bibliotheken herbei führen. Es ständen der Abkehr von den deutschen Standards vor allem Abteilungsleiter und Katalogspezialisten entgegen. Die deutschen Standards beruhten auf spezifisch deutschen Eigenheiten (wobei offen blieb, ob die Benutzer oder die Bibliothekare gemeint waren). 3."Es wurde unter den Podiumsteilnehmern ein Freiwilliger gesucht, der in seinem Verantwortungsbereich einmal versuchen könne, die Veränderung der Standards erfolgreich zu diskutieren. Es fand sich allerdings kein Freiwilliger. 4. Es wurde die "Harmonisierung" der deutschen und der internationalen Standards als Lösung vorgeschlagen, wobei offen blieb, was "Harmonisierung" bedeuten könnte. 5. Ergebnis der Podiumsdiskussion: Es ist alles sehr schwierig und kompliziert und man sollte maI drüber reden". Der Autor als Zuhörer im Publikum der Podiumsdiskussion möchte nun den Podiumsteilnehmern und allen, die es angeht, einen Vorschlag unterbreiten, wie wir in den deutschen Bibliotheken weiter kommen könnten. 1. Die maßgeblichen Gremien (dazu zähle ich vor allem: die AG der Verbundsysteme, den Standardisierungsausschuss, die DFG) fassen einen gemeinsamen Beschluss, dass ab sofort an den deutschen Standards nicht mehr weiter gearbeitet wird. Der Beschluss soll deshalb gemeinsam gefasst werden, damit nicht ein einzelnes Gremium oder einzelne Personen, die unter den Druck ihrer Klientel geraten, ins Wanken kommen können, sondern einen Rückhalt haben. 2. Alle Einwände gegen diesen Beschluss können innerhalb eines Jahres schriftlich und mit Begründung bei einer noch zu benennenden Stelle eingereicht werden. Diese Stelle sammelt die Einwände, ordnet sie nach Themen und lässt sie ein Jahr lang inhaltlich unbearbeitet liegen. Nach Ablauf eines Jahres werden die Einwände diskutiert. 3. Die unter Ziffer 1) genannten Gremien erläutern ihrer Klientel ein Jahr lang die Vorteile eines Umschwenkens auf die internationalen Standards. Fachleute aus dem Ausland sind hinzu zu ziehen. 4. Die genannten Gremien legen eine Zeitspanne fest, innerhalb derer die deutschen Bibliotheken die Standards wechseln. Ich habe den Eindruck, dass die deutschen Bibliotheken und ihre Mitarbeiter auf einen solchen richtungsweisenden Beschluss warten. Er ist überfällig. Ein Wechsel wird Aufwand und Probleme in den Bibliotheken verursachen. Dies ist aber kein Argument dagegen, denn Bibliothekare müssen in längeren Zeiträumen denken als wenige Jahren in die Zukunft. Der Anschluss an die internationale Bibliotheksgemeinschaft ist wichtiger als die temporären Schwierigkeiten."

0.025559153 = product of:
  0.051118307 = sum of:
    0.038727082 = weight(_text_:standards in 5042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038727082 = score(doc=5042,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.17234999 = fieldWeight in 5042, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5042)
    0.012391226 = product of:
      0.024782453 = sum of:
        0.024782453 = weight(_text_:organization in 5042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024782453 = score(doc=5042,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13787198 = fieldWeight in 5042, 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=5042)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Work on a prototype of the new Soggettario (the main Italian subject heading list) has begun in October 2004 at the Central National Library of Florence (BNCF). BNCF is involving in the renewal of the most used subject indexing tool of Italian libraries. The project had already produced a Feasibility Study, representing a reference for the works which have started recently. An Italian abstract of the Feasibility Study, and more documentation, can be found in the BCNF website at the Web address <http://www bncf.firenze.sbn.it/progetti/>. Together with the project team and the BNCF staff, some young external consultants are working, who are focusing on the terminological component of the system, namely the prototype of the Thesaurus. At the same time, documents are produced which define procedures, establish criteria, and give guidelines. The list of items by which the prototype started consists of: - the terms included in the updates provided by the Italian National Bibliography (BNI) during the period 1986-1998 (already published in the form of lists); - the items introduced from 1999 to 2005 - other items introduced in the past years but never recorded; - some terms from the Soggettario (1956) or from BNI updates (1956-19S5), being especially outdated and needing revision. In building the semantic networks and the hierarchies, and in making the terminological control, of course, more terms have to be included, which come from the Soggettario, the BNI and other authoritative sources both catalographic (various indexing tools) and lexicographic (general and special directories). DDC numbers are also related to the terms in the Thesaurus. The prototype, to be completed in April 2006, will include a sample of terms for each disciplinary area. About 5000 terms will have a complete structure, but 6000 more will be included in the Thesaurus in order to fill the semantic networks, and marked with a different working status. For the prototype the AgroVoc software is used, which has been provided by FAO and adapted by the BNCF computing staff in order to match the specific requirements of the project. Thanks to the potential of this software, we intend to test in future on the multilingual side of terminology. Such work is likely to begin by testing links to the corresponding forms used by the Library of Congress. We are currently beginning to focus on this, and we wish that external parties be involved which are concerned with multilingual terminology in more or less specialistic contexts. We will follow the road of conventions with Italian universities, which could cooperate to this development through their students and graded students. We are also looking at the developments in the work of the British BSI working group on standards for thesauri convened by Stella Dextre Clarke.

Source

Knowledge organization. 32(2005) no.3, S.137-138

0.023472156 = product of:
  0.093888626 = sum of:
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 5662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=5662,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 5662, 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=5662)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Defines authority control and vocabulary control and their place and utility in modern cataloguing. Discusses authority records and authority files and the use and purposes of each. Describes the creation of authority records and the sources from which authority data is collected. Discusses "metadata" schemes and their manifold and manifest inadequacies; points out the relationship of the Dublin Core to the MARC family of standards and the fact that both are framework standards-the first simplistic and naïve, the second complex and nuanced. Defines precision and recall as desiderata in indexing and retrieval schemes and relates them to authority control in catalogues. Discusses the problems involved in cataloguing electronic documents and resources and proposes an international program under the Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) umbrella, using an international code of descriptive cataloguing, and based on an international name authority file. Calls for urgent action on these proposals.

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)."

0.022359734 = product of:
  0.04471947 = sum of:
    0.020812286 = weight(_text_:information in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020812286 = score(doc=167,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 167, 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=167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

While many catalogers are using the Web to find the information they need to perform authority work quickly and accurately, the full potential of the Web to assist catalogers in name authority work has yet to be realized. The ever-growing nature of the Web means that available information for creating personal name, corporate name, and other types of headings will increase. In this article, we examine ways in which simple and effective Web searching can save catalogers time and money in the process of authority work. In addition, questions involving evaluating authority information found on the Web are explored.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.022129761 = product of:
  0.088519044 = sum of:
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 436, 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=436)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper traces the efforts made by IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions over the past three decades to promote the concept of Universal bibliographic Control in relation to authorities and authority control. It covers the work done by various groups within IFLA to develop standards for personal and corporate name headings, for authority and reference entries, and for UNIMARC/Authorities. The paper concludes with a summary of possible models for the future development of a systems infrastructure for international authority control.

0.019363541 = product of:
  0.077454165 = sum of:
    0.077454165 = weight(_text_:standards in 1076) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077454165 = score(doc=1076,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34469998 = fieldWeight in 1076, 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=1076)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority data has always been at the core of library catalogues. Today, authority data is reference data on a wider scale. The former authorities of the "Sudoc" union catalogue mutated into "IdRef", a read/write platform of open data and services which seeks to become a national supplier of reliable identifiers for French universities. To support their dissemination and comply with high quality standards, Paprika and Qualinka have been added to our toolbox, to expedite the massive and secure linking of scientific publications to IdRef authorities.

0.018399216 = product of:
  0.036798432 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=704,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 704, 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=704)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 704) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=704,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 704, 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=704)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Controlled vocabularies are a foundational concept in library science and provide a framework for consistency in cataloging practices. Subject headings provide valuable access points to library resources during search and discovery for patrons. Many librarians will be familiar with the more widely used controlled vocabularies, like those maintained by national libraries or major professional organizations. More recently, there has been an increasing shift toward specialized vocabularies maintained by independent entities intended for much narrower use. While there is valid criticism of the nature or content of controlled vocabularies, they will likely continue to be an important feature in information organization.