Search (976 results, page 1 of 49)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Noruzi, A.: FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2012) 0.10
    0.09908125 = product of:
      0.1981625 = sum of:
        0.1981625 = sum of:
          0.14895844 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.14895844 = score(doc=4564,freq=12.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.84286875 = fieldWeight in 4564, 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=4564)
          0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04920405 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4564, 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=4564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Bibliographic relationships are one of the most active research areas in knowledge organization, especially in cataloguing. This study attempts to examine and map the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) bibliographic relationships with Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships, and to a ssess the congruence between them. The FRBR conceptual model provides a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships in chapter 5, illustrating them in 11 tables. This study shows that there is considerable congruence between these two taxonomies.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:13:52
  2. Stalberg, E.; Cronin, C.: Assessing the cost and value of bibliographic control (2011) 0.08
    0.081017956 = product of:
      0.16203591 = sum of:
        0.16203591 = sum of:
          0.11898236 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.11898236 = score(doc=2592,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.6732516 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
                3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                  10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
          0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043053545 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In June 2009, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group established the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control to address recommendation 5.1.1.1 of On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, which focused on developing measures for costs, benefits, and value of bibliographic control. This paper outlines results of that task force's efforts to develop and articulate metrics for evaluating the cost and value of cataloging activities specifically, and offers some next steps that the community could take to further the profession's collective understanding of the costs and values associated with bibliographic control.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  3. O'Neill, E.; Zumer, M.; Mixter, J.: FRBR aggregates : their types and frequency in library collections (2015) 0.07
    0.069443956 = product of:
      0.13888791 = sum of:
        0.13888791 = sum of:
          0.10198487 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10198487 = score(doc=2610,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.5770728 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
                3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                  10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
          0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03690304 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Aggregates have been a frequent topic of discussion between library science researchers. This study seeks to better understand aggregates through the analysis of a sample of bibliographic records and review of the cataloging treatment of aggregates. The study focuses on determining how common aggregates are in library collections, what types of aggregates exist, how aggregates are described in bibliographic records, and the criteria for identifying aggregates from the information in bibliographic records. A sample of bibliographic records representing textual resources was taken from OCLC's WorldCat database. More than 20 percent of the sampled records represented aggregates and more works were embodied in aggregates than were embodied in single work manifestations. A variety of issues, including cataloging practices and the varying definitions of aggregates, made it difficult to accurately identify and quantify the presence of aggregates using only the information from bibliographic records.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. Parka, A.L.; Panchyshyn, R.S.: ¬The path to an RDA hybridized catalog : lessons from the Kent State University Libraries' RDA enrichment project (2016) 0.07
    0.06760844 = product of:
      0.13521688 = sum of:
        0.13521688 = sum of:
          0.09216333 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.09216333 = score(doc=2632,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
          0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043053545 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This article describes in detail the library implementation of a Resource Description and Access (RDA) Enrichment project. The library "hybridized," or enriched legacy data from Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules bibliographic records by the addition of specific RDA elements. The project also cleaned up various other elements in the bibliographic data that were not directly RDA-related. There were over 28 million changes and edits made to these records, changes that would never have been made otherwise because the library lacked the resources to do them independently. The enrichment project made the bibliographic data consistent, and helped prepared the data for its eventual transition to a linked data environment.
    Date
    21. 1.2016 19:08:22
  5. Coyle, K.: FRBR, before and after : a look at our bibliographic models (2016) 0.07
    0.065655485 = product of:
      0.13131097 = sum of:
        0.13131097 = sum of:
          0.10055844 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10055844 = score(doc=2786,freq=14.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.56900144 = fieldWeight in 2786, 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=2786)
          0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.030752534 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2786, 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=2786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This book looks at the ways that we define the things of the bibliographic world, and in particular how our bibliographic models reflect our technology and the assumed goals of libraries. There is, of course, a history behind this, as well as a present and a future. The first part of the book begins by looking at the concept of the 'work' in library cataloging theory, and how that concept has evolved since the mid-nineteenth century to date. Next it talks about models and technology, two areas that need to be understood before taking a long look at where we are today. It then examines the new bibliographic model called Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the technical and social goals that the FRBR Study Group was tasked to address. The FRBR entities are analyzed in some detail. Finally, FRBR as an entity-relation model is compared to a small set of Semantic Web vocabularies that can be seen as variants of the multi-entity bibliographic model that FRBR introduced.
    Content
    Part I. Work, model, technologyThe work -- The model -- The technology -- Part II. FRBR and other solutions -- Introduction -- FRBR : standard for international sharing -- The entity-relation model -- What is modeled in FRBR -- Does FRBR meet FRBR's objectives? -- Some issues that arise -- Bibliographic description and the Semantic Web.
    Date
    12. 2.2016 16:22:58
  6. Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011) 0.06
    0.06406054 = product of:
      0.12812108 = sum of:
        0.12812108 = sum of:
          0.09121804 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.09121804 = score(doc=302,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
          0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03690304 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Chambers, S.; Myall, C.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2007-8 (2010) 0.06
    0.059152298 = product of:
      0.118304595 = sum of:
        0.118304595 = sum of:
          0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07525105 = score(doc=4309,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
          0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043053545 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  8. Henttonen, P.: Bibliographic subject headings as access points to archival sources (2014) 0.06
    0.059152298 = product of:
      0.118304595 = sum of:
        0.118304595 = sum of:
          0.07525105 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07525105 = score(doc=1460,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 1460, 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=1460)
          0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043053545 = score(doc=1460,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1460, 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=1460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The paper examines whether subject headings in a bibliographic description could be used to direct users to relevant archival sources: a publication about a subject is likely to cite archival sources that are related to the subject. In the light of the data collected for the paper this approach might work in case of some keywords. However, there are also problems, like finding the optimal level the user should be directed to in the archival hierarchy, and the lack of information in archival persistent identifiers (PIDs).
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  9. Verwer, K.: Freiheit und Verantwortung bei Hans Jonas (2011) 0.05
    0.054075442 = product of:
      0.108150885 = sum of:
        0.108150885 = product of:
          0.43260354 = sum of:
            0.43260354 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.43260354 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.38486624 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
          0.25 = coord(1/4)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.
  10. Smiraglia, R.P.: Classification interaction demonstrated empirically (2014) 0.05
    0.05070197 = product of:
      0.10140394 = sum of:
        0.10140394 = sum of:
          0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0645009 = score(doc=1420,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
          0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03690304 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    There is greater depth in knowledge organization systems beyond the surface of hierarchically-structured concepts. Deconstructed elements of a knowledge organization system share network-like relationships that might be used in interaction with the characteristics of documents to provide "classification interaction" as a means of identifying previously undiscovered relationships. A random sample of UDC call numbers from the online catalog of the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) is analyzed to discover interactions among conceptual classification, instantiation, and bibliographic demographic characteristics. The associations demonstrated represent ways in which predictable interactions occur among classified bibliographic entities and the components of the rich UDC classification.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  11. Blackman, C.; Moore, E.R.; Seikel, M.; Smith, M.: WorldCat and SkyRiver (2014) 0.05
    0.05070197 = product of:
      0.10140394 = sum of:
        0.10140394 = sum of:
          0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0645009 = score(doc=2602,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2602, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2602)
          0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03690304 = score(doc=2602,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2602, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In 2009, a new company, SkyRiver, began offering bibliographic utility services to libraries in direct competition to OCLC's WorldCat. This study examines the differences between the two databases in terms of hit rates, total number of records found for each title in the sample, number of non-English language records, and the presence and completeness of several elements in the most-held bibliographic record for each title. While this study discovered that the two databases had virtually the same hit rates and record fullness for the sample used-with encoding levels as the sole exception-the study results do indicate meaningful differences in the number of duplicate records and non-English-language records available in each database for recently published scholarly monographs.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  12. Martin, K.E.; Mundle, K.: Positioning libraries for a new bibliographic universe (2014) 0.05
    0.05070197 = product of:
      0.10140394 = sum of:
        0.10140394 = sum of:
          0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0645009 = score(doc=2608,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2608, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2608)
          0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03690304 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2608, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper surveys the English-language literature on cataloging and classification published during 2011 and 2012, covering both theory and application. A major theme of the literature centered on Resource Description and Access (RDA), as the period covered in this review includes the conclusion of the RDA test, revisions to RDA, and the implementation decision. Explorations in the theory and practical applications of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), upon which RDA is organized, are also heavily represented. Library involvement with linked data through the creation of prototypes and vocabularies are explored further during the period. Other areas covered in the review include: classification, controlled vocabularies and name authority, evaluation and history of cataloging, special formats cataloging, cataloging and discovery services, non-AACR2/RDA metadata, cataloging workflows, and the education and careers of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  13. Alonso Lifante, M.P.; Molero Madrid, F.J.: Enhancing OPAC records : evaluating and fitting within cataloguing standards a new proposal of description parameters for historical astronomical resources (2015) 0.05
    0.05070197 = product of:
      0.10140394 = sum of:
        0.10140394 = sum of:
          0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0645009 = score(doc=2611,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2611, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2611)
          0.03690304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03690304 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Enhancing content description of specialized resources, particularly astronomical resources, is a matter that is still unresolved in library and information science. In this paper, the authors outline deficiencies in some fields and elements of cataloging standards for description of historical astronomical resources, mainly star atlases and catalogs. Furthermore, they review their recent proposal of astronomical parameters for a better description and propose an approach for accommodating these parameters in the current criteria of MARC 21, the International Standard Bibliographic Description, and Resource Description and Access. Fourteen new parameters are considered, and recommendations are provided to standards developers for the addition of elements to accommodate attributes of celestial cartographic resources. This would improve bibliographic records for such resources in astronomical libraries' OPACs, which will have a beneficial effect on information retrieval.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  14. Soulier, L.; Jabeur, L.B.; Tamine, L.; Bahsoun, W.: On ranking relevant entities in heterogeneous networks using a language-based model (2013) 0.05
    0.048291743 = product of:
      0.096583486 = sum of:
        0.096583486 = sum of:
          0.06583095 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.06583095 = score(doc=664,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
          0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.030752534 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A new challenge, accessing multiple relevant entities, arises from the availability of linked heterogeneous data. In this article, we address more specifically the problem of accessing relevant entities, such as publications and authors within a bibliographic network, given an information need. We propose a novel algorithm, called BibRank, that estimates a joint relevance of documents and authors within a bibliographic network. This model ranks each type of entity using a score propagation algorithm with respect to the query topic and the structure of the underlying bi-type information entity network. Evidence sources, namely content-based and network-based scores, are both used to estimate the topical similarity between connected entities. For this purpose, authorship relationships are analyzed through a language model-based score on the one hand and on the other hand, non topically related entities of the same type are detected through marginal citations. The article reports the results of experiments using the Bibrank algorithm for an information retrieval task. The CiteSeerX bibliographic data set forms the basis for the topical query automatic generation and evaluation. We show that a statistically significant improvement over closely related ranking models is achieved.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:34:49
  15. Green, R.: Facet detection using WorldCat and WordNet (2014) 0.05
    0.048132036 = product of:
      0.09626407 = sum of:
        0.09626407 = sum of:
          0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.053210527 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 1419, 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=1419)
          0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 1419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043053545 = score(doc=1419,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1419, 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=1419)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Because procedures for establishing facets tend toward subjectivity, this pilot project investigates whether the facet structure of a subject literature can be discerned automatically on the basis of its own metadata. Nouns found in the titles of works retrieved from the WorldCat bibliographic database based on Dewey number are mapped against the nodes of the WordNet noun network. Density measures are computed for these nodes to identify nodes best summarizing the title noun data / best corresponding to facets of the subject. Results of the work to date are promising enough to warrant further investigation.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  16. Mugridge, R.L.; Edmunds, J.: Batchloading MARC bibliographic records (2012) 0.05
    0.048132036 = product of:
      0.09626407 = sum of:
        0.09626407 = sum of:
          0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.053210527 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
          0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043053545 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  17. Snow, K.; Hoffman, G.L.: What makes an effective cataloging course? : a study of the factors that promote learning (2015) 0.05
    0.048132036 = product of:
      0.09626407 = sum of:
        0.09626407 = sum of:
          0.053210527 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.053210527 = score(doc=2609,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 2609, 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=2609)
          0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043053545 = score(doc=2609,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2609, 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=2609)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper presents the results of a research study, a survey of library and information science master's degree holders who have taken a beginning cataloging course, to identify the elements of a beginning cataloging course that help students to learn cataloging concepts and skills. The results suggest that cataloging practice (the hands-on creation of bibliographic records or catalog cards), the effectiveness of the instructor, a balance of theory and practice, and placing cataloging in a real-world context contribute to effective learning. However, more research is needed to determine how, and to what the extent, each element should be incorporated into beginning cataloging courses.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.05
    0.04506287 = product of:
      0.09012574 = sum of:
        0.09012574 = product of:
          0.36050296 = sum of:
            0.36050296 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.36050296 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.38486624 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.045395818 = queryNorm
                0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
          0.25 = coord(1/4)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  19. Gnoli, C.: Classification transcends library business : the case of BiblioPhil (2010) 0.04
    0.04225164 = product of:
      0.08450328 = sum of:
        0.08450328 = sum of:
          0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.053750746 = score(doc=3698,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
          0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.030752534 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3698, 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=3698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Although bibliographic classifications usually adopt a perspective different from that of object classifications, the two have obvious relationships. These become especially relevant when users are looking for knowledge scattered in a wide variety of forms and media. This is an increasingly common situation, as library catalogues now coexist in the global digital environment with catalogues of archives, of museums, of commercial products, and many other information resources. In order to make the subject content of all these resources searchable, a broader conception of classification is needed, that can be applied to an knowledge item, rather than only bibliographic materials. To illustrate this we take an example of the research on bagpipes in Northern Italian folklore. For this kind of research, the most effective search strategy is a cross-media one, looking for many different knowledge sources such as published documents, police archives, painting details, museum specimens, organizations devoted to related subjects. To provide satisfying results for this kind of search, the traditional disciplinary approach to classification is not sufficient. Tools are needed in which knowledge items dealing with a phenomenon of interest can be retrieved independently from the other topics with which it is combined, the disciplinary context, and the medium where it occurs. This can be made possible if the basic units of classification are taken to be the phenomena treated, as recommended in the León Manifesto, rather than disciplines or other aspect features. The concept of bagpipes should be retrievable and browsable in any combination with other phenomena, disciplines, media etc. Examples are given of information sources that could be managed by this freely-faceted technique of classification.
    Date
    22. 7.2010 20:40:08
  20. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.04
    0.04225164 = product of:
      0.08450328 = sum of:
        0.08450328 = sum of:
          0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.053750746 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
          0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.030752534 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.045395818 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, 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=4635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.

Languages

  • e 771
  • d 192
  • i 3
  • a 1
  • f 1
  • hu 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 852
  • el 98
  • m 63
  • s 18
  • x 15
  • r 10
  • b 5
  • i 2
  • n 1
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications