Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024292652 = product of:
  0.048585303 = sum of:
    0.048585303 = product of:
      0.097170606 = sum of:
        0.097170606 = weight(_text_:22 in 2840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097170606 = score(doc=2840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 2840, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2840)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.02125607 = product of:
  0.04251214 = sum of:
    0.04251214 = product of:
      0.08502428 = sum of:
        0.08502428 = weight(_text_:22 in 7196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08502428 = score(doc=7196,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7196, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7196)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.1

0.02125607 = product of:
  0.04251214 = sum of:
    0.04251214 = product of:
      0.08502428 = sum of:
        0.08502428 = weight(_text_:22 in 2841) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08502428 = score(doc=2841,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2841, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2841)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2

0.011424675 = product of:
  0.02284935 = sum of:
    0.02284935 = product of:
      0.0456987 = sum of:
        0.0456987 = weight(_text_:2003 in 2312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0456987 = score(doc=2312,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.23490772 = fieldWeight in 2312, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 31(2004) no.4, S.255-257: (P. Riva): "Cataloguing standardization at the international level can be viewed as proceeding in a series of milestone conferences. This meeting, the first in a series which will cover different regions of the world, will take its place in that progression. The first IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code (IME ICC), held July 28-30, 2003 at Die Deutsche Bibliothek in Frankfurt, gathered representatives of almost all European countries as well as three of the four AACR author countries. As explained in the introduction by Barbara Tillett, chair of the IME ICC planning committee, the plan is for five meetings in total. Subsequent meetings are to take place in Buenos Aires, Argentina (held August 17-18, 2004) for Latin America and the Carribean, to be followed by Alexandria, Egypt (2005) for the Middle East, Seoul, South Korea (2006) for Asia, and Durban, South Africa (2007) for Africa. The impetus for planning these meetings was triggered by the 40th anniversary of the Paris Principles, approved at the International Conference an Cataloguing Principles held in 1961. Many will welcome the timely publication of the reports and papers from this important conference in book form. The original conference website (details given an p. 176) which includes most of the same material, is still extant, but the reports and papers gathered into this volume will be referred to by cataloguing rule makers long after the web as we know it has transformed itself into a new (and quite possibly not backwards compatible) environment.
The book is organized into four sections: introduction and results; presentation papers; background papers; and an appendix. The introduction by Barbara Tillett serves as a summary and report of the IME ICC meeting itself. The statement of the purpose of the meeting bears reporting in full (p. 6): "The goal for this meeting was to increase the ability to share cataloguing information worldwide by promoting standards for the content of bibliographic records and authority records used in library catalogues." The next item is a report summarizing the cataloguing Code comparisons prepared prior to the conference. As a mechanism for discussion, 18 codes were compared with the Paris Principles, the extent of compliance or divergence noted and discussed by representatives from the respective rule-making bodies. During the meeting the presentation of the comparisons took up half of the first day, but for the detailed responses one must return to the IME ICC website. The published summary is very dense, and difficult to follow if one is not very familiar with the Paris Principles or the codes being compared. The main outcome of the meeting follows, this is the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (draft, as approved Dec. 19, 2003 by IME ICC participants), accompanied by a useful Glossary. The most important eontribution of this volume is to serve as the permanent and official record of the Statement as it stands after the first IME ICC meeting. Subsequent meetings will surely suggest modifications and enhancements, but this version of the Statement needs to be widely read and commented on. To this end the website also makes available translations of the Statement into 15 European languages, and the glossary into four languages. Compared to the Paris Principles, this statement covers some familiar ground in the choice of access points and forms of names, but its overall scope is broader, explicitly referring to the role of authority records, entities in bibliographic records and relationships. It concludes with an appendix of "Objectives for the construction of cataloguing codes."
The section of background papers starts most appropriately by reprinting the Statement of Principles from the 1961 Paris Conference and continues with another twelve papers of varying lengths, most written specifically for the IME ICC. For the published report the papers have been organized to follow the order of topics assigned to the Tive working groups: Working Group 1 Personal names; WG2 Corporate bodies; WG3 Seriality; WG4 Multivolume/multipart structures; and WG5 Uniform titles, GMDs. Pino Buizza and Mauro Guerrini co-author a substantial paper "Author and title access point control: On the way national bibliographic agencies face the issue forty years after the Paris Principles," which was first presented in Italian at the November 2002 workshop an Cataloguing and Authority Control in Rome. Issues that remain unresolved are which name or title to adopt, which form of the name or title, and which entry word to select, while choice of headings has become more uniform. The impact of catalogue language (meaning both the language of the cataloguing agency and of the majority of users of the catalogue) an these choices is explored by examining the headings used in ten national authority files for a full range of names, personal and corporate. The reflections presented are both practical and grounded in theory. Mauro Guerrini, assisted by Pino Buizza and Lucia Sardo, contributes a further new paper "Corporate bodies from ICCP up to 2003," which is an excellent survey of the surprisingly controversial issue of corporate bodies as authors, starting with Panizzi, Jewett, Cutter, Dziatzko, Fumagalli, and Lubetzky, through the debate at the Paris Conference, to the views of Verona, Domanovszky and Carpenter, and work under the auspices of IFLA an the Form and structure of corporate headings (FSCH) project and its Rvew, as well as a look at the archival standard ISAAR(CPF). This paper is the only one to have a comprehensive bibliography.

RSWK

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Frankfurt <Main, 2003>

Subject

Alphabetische Katalogisierung / Standardisierung / Internationale Kooperation / Kongress / Frankfurt <Main, 2003>

0.010628035 = product of:
  0.02125607 = sum of:
    0.02125607 = product of:
      0.04251214 = sum of:
        0.04251214 = weight(_text_:22 in 8779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04251214 = score(doc=8779,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 8779, 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=8779)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00583013 = product of:
  0.01166026 = sum of:
    0.01166026 = product of:
      0.02332052 = sum of:
        0.02332052 = weight(_text_:2003 in 1729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02332052 = score(doc=1729,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.11987585 = fieldWeight in 1729, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1729)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: BuB 55(2003) H.4, S.259-260 (B. Rohde): "»Nikolausbeschluss« - ein recht untypischer Fachausdruck im Bibliothekswesen. Dennoch gibt es sicherlich nur wenige Personen in den wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken Deutschlands, die mit diesem Begriff nichts anzufangen wissen. »Der Standardisierungsausschuss strebt grundsätzlich einen Umstieg von den deutschen auf internationale Regelwerke und Formate (AACR und MARC) an«, entschied das dem Hause Der Deutschen Bibliothek angegliederte nationale Gremium für Regelwerksfragen am 6. Dezember 2001. Der geplante Umstieg vom derzeitigen nationalen Datenformat MAB und Regelwerk RAK auf das aus dem angloamerikanischen Raum stammende MARC-Datenformat (Machine Readable Cataloging) sowie das Katalogregelwerk AACR (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules), derzeit in der 1988 revidierten zweiten Ausgabe vorliegend, wurde letztes Jahr wie kein anderesThema auf breiter Basis diskutiert. Eine Gruppe Studierender am Institut für Bibliothekswissenschaft der Humboldt-Universität Berlin hat nun diese Diskussion aufgegriffen. In ihrem Publikationsprojekt unter der Leitung der Herausgeberin Petra Hauke ist es ihnen gelungen, Vertreter der unterschiedlichsten Meinungen zum Thema » RAK versus AACR« als Autoren für Einzelbeiträge in diesem Sammelband zu gewinnen. - Sachliche Diskussion - Wer die Diskussion verfolgt hat, weiß einen Teil der Autoren einer entsprechenden Meinungsfraktion ohne weiteres zuzuordnen. Die Diskussion ist auch mit Beteiligung einiger der Autoren in den fachspezifischen Mailinglisten tagesaktuell teilweise sehr heftig geführt worden. Mitunter sind die Beiträge auch durch Veröffentlichung an anderer Stelle oder durch Vorträge bereit bekannt gewesen und haben für diesen Band eine Oberarbeitung erfahren. Wenn auch der Begriff »versus« aus dem Titel den recht deutlichen emotionalen Frontverlauf zwischen Gegnern und Befürwortern des geplanten Umstiegs einfängt, so finden sich doch die Vertreter der verschiedensten Meinungsrichtungen auf einer sachlichen Ebene in diesem Buch wieder. Insofern kann es zum Verständnis der jeweiligen Gegenseite beitragen, ebenso wie zur Meinungsbildung bei Personen, die sich mit diesem Thema noch nicht intensiv beschäftigt haben. Quasi als »Repräsentantinnen« Der Deutschen Bibliothek und damit des Standardisierungsausschusses als beschlussfassendes Gremium zeigen Renate Gömpel und Gudrun Henze im einführenden Beitrag in erster Linie auf entwicklungsgeschichtlicher Ebene die Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten beider Regelwerke auf. Die Vorgeschichte des Umstiegsbeschlusses wird ebenfalls nachgezeichnet sowie ein Ausblick auf die weitere Planung gegeben. Auch führt das Autorinnenduo Gründe auf, die aus Sicht Der Deutschen Bibliothek für einen Umstieg sprechen. Tatsächlich hat Die Deutsche Bibliothek als größter nationaler Datenlieferant sicherlich auch das größte Interesse an einem Umstieg aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen. Zur bisherigen Umstiegsdiskussion hat Bernhard Eversberg durch seine Online-Umfrage der breiten Bibliotheksbasis Gehör verschafft. In seiner »Theorie der Bibliothekskataloge und Suchmaschinen« erarbeitet er die gemeinsamen und unterschiedlichen Grundlagen dieser beiden Suchwerkzeuge. Er weist hierbei auch auf die Bedeutung des Datenformates hin, das getrennt von den Regelwerken zu betrachten sei. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdient auch der Beitrag von Luise Hoffmann; das Projekt der Machbarkeitsstudie zum Umstieg von Seiten Der Deutschen Bibliothek liegt in ihren Händen. In ihrem Beitrag hat sie die verantwortungsvolle Aufgabe übernommen, die beiden Regelwerke aufgrund ihrer inneren Struktur zu vergleichen. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede im Aufbau, bei den Bestimmungen für Haupt- und Nebeneinträge sowie den Ansetzungsregeln von Personen und Körperschaften kommen hier nicht zu kurz. Ihr Versuch, »Vorurteile abzubauen und die Gemeinsamkeiten der Regelwerke hervorzuheben«, trägt sehr dazu bei, dem strikten »versus« die Spitze zu nehmen.