Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015070582 = product of:
  0.060282327 = sum of:
    0.060282327 = product of:
      0.120564654 = sum of:
        0.120564654 = weight(_text_:instruction in 255) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120564654 = score(doc=255,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.45899904 = fieldWeight in 255, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=255)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Public library catalogues in early twentieth-century Britain frequently included annotations, either to clarify obscure titles or to provide further information about the subject-matter of the books they described. Two manuals giving instruction on how to do this were published at that time. Following World War I, with the decline of the printed catalogue, this kind of annotation became rarer, and was almost confined to bulletins of new books. The early issues of the British National Bibliography included some annotations in exceptional cases. Parallels are drawn with the provision of table-of-contents information in present-day OPAC's.

0.014608216 = product of:
  0.058432862 = sum of:
    0.058432862 = sum of:
      0.034447044 = weight(_text_:instruction in 359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034447044 = score(doc=359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.26266864 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04425879 = queryNorm
          0.13114259 = fieldWeight in 359, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.934836 = idf(docFreq=317, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=359)
      0.02398582 = weight(_text_:22 in 359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02398582 = score(doc=359,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04425879 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 359, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=359)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"The contents of the book cover: This book is intended as an introduction to the Dewey Decimal Classification, edition 22. It is not a substitute for it, and I assume that you have it, all four volumes of it, by you while reading the book. I have deliberately included only a short section an WebDewey. This is partly because WebDewey is likely to change more frequently than the printed version, but also because this book is intended to help you use the scheme regardless of the manifestation in which it appears. If you have a subscription to WebDewey and not the printed volumes you may be able to manage with that, but you may then find my references to volumes and page numbers baffling. All the examples and exercises are real; what is not real is the idea that you can classify something without seeing more than the title. However, there is nothing that I can do about this, and I have therefore tried to choose examples whose titles adequately express their subject-matter. Sometimes when you look at the 'answers' you may feel that you have been cheated, but I hope that this will be seldom. Two people deserve special thanks. My colleague Vanda Broughton has read drafts of the book and made many suggestions. Ross Trotter, chair of the CILIP Dewey Decimal Classification Committee, who knows more about Dewey than anyone in Britain today, has commented extensively an it and as far as possible has saved me from error, as well as suggesting many improvements. What errors remain are due to me alone. Thanks are also owed to OCLC Online Computer Library Center, for permission to reproduce some specimen pages of DDC 22. Excerpts from the Dewey Decimal Classification are taken from the Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index, Edition 22 which is Copyright 2003 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. DDC, Dewey, Dewey Decimal Classification and WebDewey are registered trademarks of OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc."

Footnote

Dewey requires that you classify bilingual dictionaries that go only one way with the language in which the entries are written, which means that an English-French dictionary has to go with English, not French. This is very unhelpful and probably not widely observed in English-speaking libraries ... one may wonder (the Norman conquest not withstanding) why Bowman feels that it is more useful to class the book in the language of the definition rather than that of the entry words - Dewey's requirement to class a dictionary of French words with English definitions with French language dictionaries seems quite reasonable. In the example of Anglo-French relations before the second World War (p. 42) the principle of adding two notations from Table 2 is succinctly illustrated but there is no discussion of why the notation is -41044 rather than -44041. Is it because the title is 'Anglo'-'French', or because -41 precedes -44, or because it is assumed that the book is being catalogued for an English library that wished to keep all Anglo relations together? The bibliography lists five classic works and the School Library Association (UK) website. The index provides additional assistance in locating topics; however it is not clear whether it is intended to be a relative index with terms in direct order or nouns with subdivisions. There are a few Cross-references and some double posting. The instruction ") ( means 'compared with"' (p. 147) seems particularly twee since the three occasions in the index could easily have included the text "compared with;" the saving of space is not worth the potential confusion. There is no entry for "displaced standard subdivisions" one must look under "standard subdivisions" with the subdivision "displaced." There is no entry for "approximating the whole," although "standing room," "class here notes" and "including notes" are listed. Both "rule of zero" and "zero" with the subdivision "rule of" are included. The "rule of zero" is really all you need to know about Dewey (p. 122): Something which can be useful if you are really stuck is to consider the possibilities one digit at a time, and never put 0 if you can put something more specific. Be as specific as possible, but if you can't say something good, say nothing. This slim volume clearly follows this advice."

Object

DDC-22

0.005246898 = product of:
  0.020987593 = sum of:
    0.020987593 = product of:
      0.041975185 = sum of:
        0.041975185 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041975185 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.

0.004497341 = product of:
  0.017989364 = sum of:
    0.017989364 = product of:
      0.035978727 = sum of:
        0.035978727 = weight(_text_:22 in 6521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035978727 = score(doc=6521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15498674 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04425879 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6521, 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=6521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.29-50