Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004164351 = product of:
  0.016657405 = sum of:
    0.016657405 = weight(_text_:information in 4357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016657405 = score(doc=4357,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 4357, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4357)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.1, S.47-59

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 4191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=4191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4191)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The report deals with the necessity for developing a National Subject Authority File in russia. Basic approaches creating such a file creation are introduced. The history and main features of the National Library of Russia Subject authority File are described. The report includes information on number of projects being undertaken both in NLR and in Russia

0.002379629 = product of:
  0.009518516 = sum of:
    0.009518516 = weight(_text_:information in 1240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009518516 = score(doc=1240,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1240, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1240)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) Project has developed a content standard for gazetteer objects and a hierarchical type scheme for geographic features. Both of these developments are based on ADL experience with an earlier gazetteer component for the Library, based on two gazetteers maintained by the U.S. federal government. We define the minimum components of a gazetteer entry as (1) a geographic name, (2) a geographic location represented by coordinates, and (3) a type designation. With these attributes, a gazetteer can function as a tool for indirect spatial location identification through names and types. The ADL Gazetteer Content Standard supports contribution and sharing of gazetteer entries with rich descriptions beyond the minimum requirements. This paper describes the content standard, the feature type thesaurus, and the implementation and research issues. A gazetteer is list of geographic names, together with their geographic locations and other descriptive information. A geographic name is a proper name for a geographic place and feature, such as Santa Barbara County, Mount Washington, St. Francis Hospital, and Southern California. There are many types of printed gazetteers. For example, the New York Times Atlas has a gazetteer section that can be used to look up a geographic name and find the page(s) and grid reference(s) where the corresponding feature is shown. Some gazetteers provide information about places and features; for example, a history of the locale, population data, physical data such as elevation, or the pronunciation of the name. Some lists of geographic names are available as hierarchical term sets (thesauri) designed for information retreival; these are used to describe bibliographic or museum materials. Examples include the authority files of the U.S. Library of Congress and the GeoRef Thesaurus produced by the American Geological Institute. The Getty Museum has recently made their Thesaurus of Geographic Names available online. This is a major project to develop a controlled vocabulary of current and historical names to describe (i.e., catalog) art and architecture literature. U.S. federal government mapping agencies maintain gazetteers containing the official names of places and/or the names that appear on map series. Examples include the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency's Geographic Names Processing System (GNPS). Both of these are maintained in cooperation with the U.S. Board of Geographic Names (BGN). Many other examples could be cited -- for local areas, for other countries, and for special purposes. There is remarkable diversity in approaches to the description of geographic places and no standardization beyond authoritative sources for the geographic names themselves.

0.0020821756 = product of:
  0.008328702 = sum of:
    0.008328702 = weight(_text_:information in 5608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008328702 = score(doc=5608,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5608, 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=5608)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the function of MARC field 670 in providing AACR authority control in OPACs through the AAAF: where field 670 is used to justify the form of content of established headings and their cross references. Reports results of a study of field 670 entries from national name authority records pertaining to the subject area of the Catholic Church in terms of: the number of field 670 entries per record; types of work cited; and information on the work themselves. Results indicate that considerable differences exist among the categories of authority records, with some (modern personal names and uniform titles) being more amenable to computerized generation. It was found possible to identify tentatively a core reference for authority work in a subject area

0.0017847219 = product of:
  0.0071388874 = sum of:
    0.0071388874 = weight(_text_:information in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071388874 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06134496 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034944877 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 1996, a study was undertaken at the University of Arkansas Libraries to evaluate the practice of front-end authority work for monographs copy cataloging. A sample of 283 name headings originating from Library of Congress, OCLC "Enhance" member, and general member copy was examined, and analysis revealed that 47.3 percent of headings correctly matched authority records already present in the library's local file. Another 41.3 percent exactly matched records in the OCLC authority file. These findings prompted the library to cease checking name headings at the point of cataloging. However, the level of inaccuracies present, combined with the value of authority records for cross-reference and note information, ensured that the Database Maintenance Unit would continue to review local headings reports and perform needed authority work.