Search (95 results, page 1 of 5)

0.065655485 = product of:
  0.13131097 = sum of:
    0.13131097 = sum of:
      0.10055844 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10055844 = score(doc=107,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.56900144 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
      0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030752534 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, 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=107)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Forty-five years have passed since Lubetzky outlined the primary objectives of the catalog, which should facilitate the identification of specific bibliographic entities, and the explicit recoguition of works and relationships amongthem. Still, our catalogs are better designed to identify specific bibliographic entities than they are to guide users among the network of potential related editions and translations of works. In this paper, we seck to examine qualitatively some interesting examples of families of related works, defined as bibliographic families. Although the cases described here were derived from a random sample, this is a qualitative analysis. We selected these bibliographic families for their ability to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of Leazer's model, which incorporates relationship taxonomies by Tillett and Smiraglia Qualitatice analysis is intended to produce on explanation of a phenomenou, particularly an identification of any palterns observed. Patterns observed in qualitative analysis can be used to affirm external observations of the same phenomena; conclusions can contribute to what is knoton as grounded theory-a unique explanation grounded in the phenomenon under study. We arrive at two statements of grounded theory concerning bibliographic families: cataloger-generated implicit maps among works are inadequate, and qualitative analysis suggests the complexity of even the smallest bibliographic families. We conclude that user behavior study is needed to suggest which alternative maps are preferable.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.059152298 = product of:
  0.118304595 = sum of:
    0.118304595 = sum of:
      0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07525105 = score(doc=3656,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 3656, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3656)
      0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 3656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043053545 = score(doc=3656,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3656, 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=3656)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Briefly follows the debate concerning: the relationship between traditional library OPACs and the WWW; possible replacement of USMARC format with SGML; and the possible demise of OPACs that do not migrate to the WWW. Discusses the approach taken by the Text encoding Initative (TEI) in their use of a mandatory TEI header in their standard SGML application as the first since CIP to explore attaching bibliographic information to the item itself to assist cataloguing

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

Source

Electronic resources: selection and bibliographic control. Ed.: L.-Y.W. Pattie, u. B.J. Cox

0.059152298 = product of:
  0.118304595 = sum of:
    0.118304595 = sum of:
      0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07525105 = score(doc=601,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
      0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043053545 = score(doc=601,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 601, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=601)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Theses and dissertations as electronic files transferred from the student author to the Graduate School to the Library may well be the first major source of electronic texts that many libraries encounter. To prepare for this potential influx of electronic texts, an ad hoc task force considered work flow and cataloging guidelines. The author suggests expanding current theses cataloging and taking advantage of online information prepared by authors so that the bibliographic records provide OPACS with much more valuable information than does traditional theses cataloging. This should not require a lot of extra work.

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Electronic Resources: Selection and Bibliographic Control

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.105-125

0.05500804 = product of:
  0.11001608 = sum of:
    0.11001608 = sum of:
      0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06081203 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 5581, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5581)
      0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04920405 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, 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=5581)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Electronic Resources: Selection and Bibliographic Control

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103

0.05500804 = product of:
  0.11001608 = sum of:
    0.11001608 = sum of:
      0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06081203 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04920405 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)

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

0.05500804 = product of:
  0.11001608 = sum of:
    0.11001608 = sum of:
      0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06081203 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
      0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04920405 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.053383786 = product of:
  0.10676757 = sum of:
    0.10676757 = sum of:
      0.07601504 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07601504 = score(doc=190,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030752534 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = 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)

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

0.052524388 = product of:
  0.105048776 = sum of:
    0.105048776 = sum of:
      0.08044675 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08044675 = score(doc=2647,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.45520115 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.024602026 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024602026 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.

Content

1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22

0.048132036 = product of:
  0.09626407 = sum of:
    0.09626407 = sum of:
      0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053210527 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
      0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043053545 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045395818 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Simultaneously published as Electronic Resources: Selection and Bibliographic Control

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.143-170

0.043000598 = product of:
  0.086001195 = sum of:
    0.086001195 = product of:
      0.17200239 = sum of:
        0.17200239 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17200239 = score(doc=5240,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.973261 = fieldWeight in 5240, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5240)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 17(1988), S.3-6

0.03949857 = product of:
  0.07899714 = sum of:
    0.07899714 = product of:
      0.15799429 = sum of:
        0.15799429 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15799429 = score(doc=4619,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.8939973 = fieldWeight in 4619, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4619)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Beitrag zur Frage der Bibliographic relationships

Source

Hierarchical relationships in bibliographic records, INTERMARC software subgroup seminar 4, Essen, 25.3.-27.3.1981

0.037625525 = product of:
  0.07525105 = sum of:
    0.07525105 = product of:
      0.1505021 = sum of:
        0.1505021 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1505021 = score(doc=1877,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.8516034 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.

0.03723961 = product of:
  0.07447922 = sum of:
    0.07447922 = product of:
      0.14895844 = sum of:
        0.14895844 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14895844 = score(doc=6686,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.84286875 = fieldWeight in 6686, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A bibliographic relationship is an association between two or more bibliographic items or works. In an effort to provide the theoretical base for a conceptual model of the library catalog, past and future, the bibliographic relationship is examined here in detail. In this first of a series of reports, a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships is derived from an analysis of cataloging rules and types of bibliographic items.

0.03258466 = product of:
  0.06516932 = sum of:
    0.06516932 = product of:
      0.13033864 = sum of:
        0.13033864 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13033864 = score(doc=4618,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.73751014 = fieldWeight in 4618, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is assumed that the conceptual structure of bibliographic records is based on the knowledge of user needs. In applying the entity-relationship model to the library catalogue the authority file and bibliographic records can be viewed as attributes, and the links between records and elements as relationships. Outlines the bibliographic relationships of the UNIMARC format, the analysis of hierarchical relationships carried out by Goosens and Mazur-Rzesos, and the typology of bibliographic documents established by McCallum. Presents 7 types of relationships developed by Tillet and gives results of an empirical study carried out to establish the extent and features of bibliographic relationships in the computerized catalogue of the Library of Congress

Footnote

Übers. des Titels: The conceptual structure of the bibliographic record

0.03258466 = product of:
  0.06516932 = sum of:
    0.06516932 = product of:
      0.13033864 = sum of:
        0.13033864 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3817) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13033864 = score(doc=3817,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.73751014 = fieldWeight in 3817, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3817)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

What kinds of mental models do library catalogue users have of the bibliographic universe in an age of online and electronic information? Using phenomenography and grounded analysis, it identifies participants' understanding, experience, and conceptualisation of the bibliographic universe, and identifies their expectations when using library catalogues. It contrasts participants' mental models with existing LIS models, and explores the nature of the bibliographic universe. The bibliographic universe can be considered to be a social object that exists because it is inscribed in catalogue records, cataloguing codes, bibliographies, and other bibliographic tools. It is a socially constituted phenomenon.

0.030406015 = product of:
  0.06081203 = sum of:
    0.06081203 = product of:
      0.12162406 = sum of:
        0.12162406 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12162406 = score(doc=623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.030406015 = product of:
  0.06081203 = sum of:
    0.06081203 = product of:
      0.12162406 = sum of:
        0.12162406 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12162406 = score(doc=6739,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 6739, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports on an analytical study to examine the cataloguing rules in AACR2 to reveal practices for indicating bibliographic relationships in cataloguing records and identify types of relationships. Relationships defined and investigated were: equivalence; derivative; descriptive; whole-part; accompanying; sequential; and shared characteristic relationships.Each type of bibliographic relationship has had several linking devices used to connect bibliographic entities. The technology available to create and maintain a catalogue has greatly influenced the types of linking devices included in the catalogue and prescribed in cataloguing rules

0.030406015 = product of:
  0.06081203 = sum of:
    0.06081203 = product of:
      0.12162406 = sum of:
        0.12162406 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3376) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12162406 = score(doc=3376,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 3376, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3376)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bibliographic(al) control is important for retrieving documents in the library. Reviews previous studies in order to understand bibliographic(al) control from its very beginnings up to the present information age. The history, meaning, scope and functions of bibliographic(al) control are included. Finally, various catalogues are reviewed and discussed

0.026875373 = product of:
  0.053750746 = sum of:
    0.053750746 = product of:
      0.10750149 = sum of:
        0.10750149 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10750149 = score(doc=3762,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.6082881 = fieldWeight in 3762, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Bibliographic control or chaos: an agenda for national bibliographic services for the 21st century. - Vgl. auch: http://www.um.es/fccd/anales/ad06/ad0618.pdf.

0.026605263 = product of:
  0.053210527 = sum of:
    0.053210527 = product of:
      0.10642105 = sum of:
        0.10642105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2587) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10642105 = score(doc=2587,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 2587, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2587)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

With the ever-increasing developments in information technology and networks, end users of the online environment now have integrated access to a variety of bibliographic databases, mainly library catalogues and A&I services, from a single terminal. While such a facility influences users' expectations and preferences in the searching, retrieval and presentation of bibliographic information, it raises an important question as to whether different bibliographic practices can use a similar or compatible set of principles for creating bibliographic records and files. This paper is an attempt to identify areas of possible reconciliation and also address some of the implications of such an issue.