Search (50 results, page 1 of 3)

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

0.06387309 = 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

0.027672652 = 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."

0.025615558 = 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.

0.022359734 = 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

0.01796158 = product of:
  0.03592316 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 120, 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=120)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 120, 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=120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Authority control has long been an important part of the cataloging process. However, few studies have been conducted examining how librarians learn about it. Research conducted to date suggests that many librarians learn about authority control on the job rather than in formal classes. To offer an introduction to authority control information for librarians, an annotated bibliography is provided. It includes monographs, articles and papers, electronic discussion groups, Web sites related to professional conferences, additional Web sites related to authority control, and training offered through the Name Authority Cooperative Program and the Subject Authority Cooperative Program. A summary of possible future trends in authority control is also provided.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.01796158 = product of:
  0.03592316 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
    0.023907183 = product of:
      0.047814365 = sum of:
        0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814365 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A variety of information communities have developed metadata schemes to meet the needs of their own users. The ability of libraries to incorporate and use multiple metadata schemes in current library systems will depend on the compatibility of imported data with existing catalog data. Authority control will play an important role in metadata interoperability. In this article, I discuss factors for successful authority control in current library catalogs, which include operation in a well-defined and bounded universe, application of principles and standard practices to access point creation, reference to authoritative lists, and bibliographic record creation by highly trained individuals. Metadata characteristics and environmental models are examined and the likelihood of successful authority control is explored for a variety of metadata environments.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.014979407 = product of:
  0.029958814 = sum of:
    0.00849658 = weight(_text_:information in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00849658 = score(doc=3750,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
    0.021462236 = product of:
      0.04292447 = sum of:
        0.04292447 = weight(_text_:organization in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04292447 = score(doc=3750,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23880129 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

As an Italian chapter of ISKO has recently been reorganized, I was kindly invited to Write a short report an current KO activities in our country. So, in the following, I will briefly illustrate the local situation of the various kinds of knowledge organization systems, as well as related developments and activities. I am grateful to Paola Capitani, Emanuela Casson, Michele Santoro, and Lorena Zuccolo for providing useful information to be included here.

Content

Terminology and thesauri BNCF is also involved in a working group collecting information an online terminological resources <http://wwwindire.it/websemantico>. The group is headed by Paola Capitani, and has organized several roundtables an terminology in special domains, such as economy, fashion, law, and education. Thesauri are generally poorly known and used in Italy, although there are significant exceptions: among faceted systems we can mention the "Thesauro italiano di sociologia," published in 1999, and the "Thesaurus regionale toscano," as well as specialized an social sciences including a general outline, available both in print (1996) and online <http:// www regione.toscana.it/ius/ns-thesaurus/>. Classification systems The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is by far the most widespread classification scheme in Italian libraries. A working group, coordinated by Luigi Crocetti, regularly translates the new editions of DDC manuals, and gives refresher courses an it for librarians. BNCF makes DDC numbers for bibliographical records both of its own catalogue, and of the national bibliography (= Bibliografia nazionale italiana: BNI), which is available for other libraries in a CD-ROM edition. A very large number of public libraries use DDC for their shelfmarks, so that users are accustomed to it. This situation is different from other European countries, e.g., Spain where UDC is widespread."

Source

Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.64-66

0.0138311 = product of:
  0.0553244 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 5675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=5675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 5675, 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=5675)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO), founded in 1976, now encompasses some 395 institutions that have collectively developed and maintained a database of more than 2,000,000 authority records in addition to the more than 3,500,000 records created by Library of Congress staff. The NACO family of libraries is expanding at a rate of about 50 new members annually. The membership include institutions from all but four of the 50 U.S. states and 43 institutions in 16 countries within Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia, and Latin America. The NACO model has changed over time to create more cost-effective and user-friendly policies and procedures to meet participants' needs. Increased recognition, especially by library administrators, of the value of authority control also encouraged NACO to flourish. This presentation explains membership requirements, benefits to the participants, as well as the role of the Library of Congress which serves as secretariat to NACO and oversees a variety of training and documentation activities to support program operations. One of the NACO's unique features - the opportunity to participate via a "Funnel Project" in which a group of institutions band together - is also described. Internationally, as the trend towards adopting AACR and MARC 21 increases, the number of NACO partners outside the U.S. also increases. For countries where other standards prevail or where English is not the official language, NACO can serve as a model to consider to provide a framework for a national program while awaiting longer-term development of a more global approach to authority control.

0.010245935 = product of:
  0.04098374 = sum of:
    0.04098374 = product of:
      0.08196748 = sum of:
        0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 6888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08196748 = score(doc=6888,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6888, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

26.12.2011 12:30:22

0.010245935 = product of:
  0.04098374 = sum of:
    0.04098374 = product of:
      0.08196748 = sum of:
        0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08196748 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.010245935 = product of:
  0.04098374 = sum of:
    0.04098374 = product of:
      0.08196748 = sum of:
        0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 1266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08196748 = score(doc=1266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.010245935 = product of:
  0.04098374 = sum of:
    0.04098374 = product of:
      0.08196748 = sum of:
        0.08196748 = weight(_text_:22 in 1290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08196748 = score(doc=1290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.0074599306 = product of:
  0.014919861 = sum of:
    0.006068985 = weight(_text_:information in 2317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006068985 = score(doc=2317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.068573356 = fieldWeight in 2317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2317)
    0.008850876 = product of:
      0.017701752 = sum of:
        0.017701752 = weight(_text_:organization in 2317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017701752 = score(doc=2317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.098479986 = fieldWeight in 2317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Am Programm für den nächsten Weltkongress arbeitet der Ständige Ausschuss bereits. Es steht unter dem Motto "Foundations to Build Future Subject Access". Geplant ist auch eine Satellitenkonferenz, die am 20. und 21. August 2009 in Florenz unter dem Titel "Past Lessons, Future Challenges in Subject Access" stattfindet, zu der alle an Klassifikationen und Indexierungsprozessen Interessierte herzlich eingeladen sind. Die Arbeitsgruppen der Sektion trafen sich in Quebec, konnten jedoch bislang keine abschließenden Ergebnisse vorlegen. So sind bisher weder die Richtlinien für multilinguale Thesauri redigiert und publiziert, noch ist mit dem Erscheinen der Richtlinien für Sacherschließungsdaten in Nationalbibliografien vor 2009 zu rechnen. Die Teilnehmer verständigten sich darauf, dass die Weiterarbeit an einem multilingualen Wörterbuch zur Katalogisierung im Zeitalter von FRBR und RDA wichtiger denn je ist. Nach dem Release der neuen IFLA-Website soll dieses Online-Nachschlagewerk auf den Webseiten eine Heimat finden und wartet auf die Mitarbeit von Katalogisierern aus aller Welt. Die Arbeitsgruppe zu den Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Records (FRSAR) traf sich 2008 mehrfach und stellte zuletzt während der Konferenz der International Society of Knowledge Organization (ISKO) in Montreal ihre Arbeitsergebnisse zur Diskussion. Leider sind keine aktuellen Papiere zu den FRSAR online verfügbar. Ein internationales Stellungnahmeverfahren zu dem Modell zu Katalogisaten von Themen von Werken im Rahmen des FRBR-Modells kann jedoch 2009 erwartet werden. Mehr Informationen dazu gibt es z.B. in der neuen Publikation "New Perspectives on Subject Indexing and Classification", einer Gedenkschrift für die verstorbene Kollegin und ehemaliges Mitglied des Ständigen Ausschusses, Magda Heiner-Freiling. Die Idee dazu entstand während des IFLA-Kongresses in Durban. Dank der zahlreichen Beitragenden aus aller Welt gelang es, im Laufe des vergangenen Jahres eine interessante Sammlung rund um die Themen DDC, verbale Sacherschließung, Terminologiearbeit und multilinguale sachliche Suchen zusammenzustellen.