Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.053071506 = product of:
  0.10614301 = sum of:
    0.10614301 = sum of:
      0.049684722 = weight(_text_:libraries in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049684722 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
      0.056458294 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056458294 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 126, 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=126)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As libraries attempt to incorporate increasing amounts of electronic resources into their catalogs, utilizing a growing variety of metadata standards, library and information science programs are grappling with how to educate catalogers to meet these challenges. In this paper, an employer considers the characteristics and skills that catalogers will need and how they might acquire them.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.028229147 = product of:
  0.056458294 = sum of:
    0.056458294 = product of:
      0.11291659 = sum of:
        0.11291659 = weight(_text_:22 in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11291659 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7684, 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=7684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 10(1984), S.17-22

0.023218784 = product of:
  0.04643757 = sum of:
    0.04643757 = sum of:
      0.021737067 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021737067 = score(doc=5606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.12703274 = fieldWeight in 5606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5606)
      0.024700502 = weight(_text_:22 in 5606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024700502 = score(doc=5606,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052088603 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 5606, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5606)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

We have all heard the story of the three blind men who were put next to an elephant and asked to describe it. Each of them touched a different part of the beast, and because none of them could examine the entire creature, their resulting description was neither accurate nor useful. Constructing a catalog has always been a bit like describing elephants blind, and rather than getting easier as standardization and new technologies are widely implemented, the emergence of new types of information resources are making the job more difficult. Remotely-accessible electronic information resources are among the newest of cataloging's elephants. Not only is it difficult to see -or touch the entire animal, but the creature may move or change during or after the description process. The beast is also unwieldy, and the person doing the description may have no control or ownership of it. The temptation is great to say that it is not our business to describe either this particular beast or any other animal that we don't own, and to walk away. Unfortunately, remotely-accessible electronic information resources are increasing in number and importance, and access to information about materials over which the local library has no control is becoming both easier and more common. Library users more and more expect to have access to these resources, so the option of leaving them undescribed and thus excluding them from the catalog is becoming indefensible. In coming to grips with the problem of describing these exotic beasts, it may be helpful to recall how we have dealt with similar challenges in the past, and to remember that the practices, rules, policies, and principles that surround and define the activity of cataloging have always reflected the current concept of what constitutes a library catalog, and that that concept inevitably reflects both the history and role of libraries and available technology. Until relatively recently the primary roles of a catalog were widely recognized to be providing inventory control for a particular collection and serving as a finding aid to that collection only, but in practice, even the most elaborate catalogs never fulfilled even these roles entirely. Whole categories of materials, such as maps, photographs, newspapers, pamphlets, and rare books were excluded, or at best were described in separate catalogs or finding aids. Information about the contents of individual objects, such as chapters, contributions, and journal articles were also rarely included in the catalog. A small number of major parts of some works were described through analytic cataloging, and contents of other items were sometimes listed in notes in cataloging records when those parts were considered separable and potentially important in their own right, but because entries were generally not made for items included in contents notes the lists were primarily useful to those who had already found the main record. Description of the internal contents of information resources was left to reference works such as indexes and bibliographies. Far from being viewed as a flaw or insufficiency in the catalog, this need to use outside finding aids was accepted as the way things were.

Date

1. 8.2006 12:22:06

0.014114574 = product of:
  0.028229147 = sum of:
    0.028229147 = product of:
      0.056458294 = sum of:
        0.056458294 = weight(_text_:22 in 2547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056458294 = score(doc=2547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2547, 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=2547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0108685335 = product of:
  0.021737067 = sum of:
    0.021737067 = product of:
      0.043474134 = sum of:
        0.043474134 = weight(_text_:libraries in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043474134 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Although the appropriateness of faculty status for technical services librarians serving in academic libraries is often debated, these librarians usually share the same personnel status as other librarians in the same institution. The success of technical services librarians in achieving tenure is explored, along with perceptions about the relative ease with which they may attain it. Possible impediments to success are identified, with special focus on the portrayal and evaluation of the practice of librarianship, as distinct from scholarly or service pursuits. Strategies for countering these impediments are suggested.

0.0108685335 = product of:
  0.021737067 = sum of:
    0.021737067 = product of:
      0.043474134 = sum of:
        0.043474134 = weight(_text_:libraries in 798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043474134 = score(doc=798,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 798, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Management issues related to the quality of a library's catalog and its source databases reflect the continual evolution of both. As catalogs seem about to mutate rather than to continue to evolve gradually, a review of how management thought about database quality was developed may assist libraries to recognize which principles and circumstances remain valid and true, to assess which are no longer applicable, and to decide what actions to take. A persistent shortcoming in the decision-making process that needs to be addressed is the lack of serious research into user needs and benefits, and the actual impact on users of database quality decisions.

0.009315886 = product of:
  0.018631771 = sum of:
    0.018631771 = product of:
      0.037263542 = sum of:
        0.037263542 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037263542 = score(doc=5567,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 5567, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5567)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Paper presented at the 36th Allerton Institute, 23-25 Oct 94, Allerton Park, Monticello, IL: "New Roles for Classification in Libraries and Information Networks: Presentation and Reports"

0.009315886 = product of:
  0.018631771 = sum of:
    0.018631771 = product of:
      0.037263542 = sum of:
        0.037263542 = weight(_text_:libraries in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037263542 = score(doc=496,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 496, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Librarians are often so eager to adopt new technologies and systems that they can lose sight of the realities that must be dealt with. Among factors that may delay use of Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) for on-line catalogues retrieval are: limited use of DDC in libraries with operational on-line catalogues; limitations to the MARC bibliographic formats: lack of an authority structure for classification number for items catalogued. Factors that may delay development of effective classification retrieval mechanisms include unclear terminology and unreasonably high (or low) expectations.