Search (76 results, page 1 of 4)

0.05135834 = product of:
  0.17975418 = sum of:
    0.09856163 = weight(_text_:case in 5422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09856163 = score(doc=5422,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17934912 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.5495518 = fieldWeight in 5422, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5422)
    0.08119255 = weight(_text_:studies in 5422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08119255 = score(doc=5422,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1627809 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.4987843 = fieldWeight in 5422, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5422)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Demonstrates through case studies how authority control simply does not work. Shows how the case studies were carried out using BOPAC2 which provides facility for downloading large files and a greater range of displays than normal OPACs. Stresses that authority control is important not only to library catalogues but also to information on the Internet. Because it is so important and because it is so expensive priority action is needed to rectify the situation. Suggests a number of ways in which this might be done.

0.03431552 = product of:
  0.12010431 = sum of:
    0.038911756 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038911756 = score(doc=5480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 5480, 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=5480)
    0.08119255 = weight(_text_:studies in 5480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08119255 = score(doc=5480,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1627809 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.4987843 = fieldWeight in 5480, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5480)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Libraries are bridges between information and the library user in the context of information retrieval. Library users want to access information resources according to their topic. Therefore, it is important to create subject entries in bibliographic records. If subject added entries and their redirects are done correctly, it will make it easier for users to access the information they are looking for. In this article the collaborative studies and projects made in Turkey are being discussed.

0.028978996 = product of:
  0.10142648 = sum of:
    0.058367632 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058367632 = score(doc=5746,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.4355408 = fieldWeight in 5746, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5746)
    0.043058854 = weight(_text_:studies in 5746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043058854 = score(doc=5746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1627809 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 5746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5746)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Authority control is an important part of the cataloging process, but relatively little research has been conducted related to its practice in academic libraries. In addition, few studies have been conducted regarding staffing and training issues related to authority control. To examine these issues, a survey was developed and emailed to academic libraries at 258 institutions designated by the year 2000 Carnegie Classification as either Doctoral/Research Extensive or Intensive level. The survey consisted of questions relating to authority control practices and staffing and training issues related to authority control. One hundred ninety-three institutions responded for a return rate of 75 percent. The survey results indicate that authority control was practiced and highly valued by the vast majority of respondents and that many would like additional time, funding, and personnel to do more authority control work in their libraries.

0.02411628 = product of:
  0.08440697 = sum of:
    0.024319848 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024319848 = score(doc=5675,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 5675, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5675)
    0.060087126 = product of:
      0.12017425 = sum of:
        0.12017425 = weight(_text_:asia in 5675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12017425 = score(doc=5675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29789865 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.3024383 = idf(docFreq=80, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04079441 = queryNorm
            0.4034065 = fieldWeight in 5675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.3024383 = idf(docFreq=80, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO), founded in 1976, now encompasses some 395 institutions that have collectively developed and maintained a database of more than 2,000,000 authority records in addition to the more than 3,500,000 records created by Library of Congress staff. The NACO family of libraries is expanding at a rate of about 50 new members annually. The membership include institutions from all but four of the 50 U.S. states and 43 institutions in 16 countries within Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia, and Latin America. The NACO model has changed over time to create more cost-effective and user-friendly policies and procedures to meet participants' needs. Increased recognition, especially by library administrators, of the value of authority control also encouraged NACO to flourish. This presentation explains membership requirements, benefits to the participants, as well as the role of the Library of Congress which serves as secretariat to NACO and oversees a variety of training and documentation activities to support program operations. One of the NACO's unique features - the opportunity to participate via a "Funnel Project" in which a group of institutions band together - is also described. Internationally, as the trend towards adopting AACR and MARC 21 increases, the number of NACO partners outside the U.S. also increases. For countries where other standards prevail or where English is not the official language, NACO can serve as a model to consider to provide a framework for a national program while awaiting longer-term development of a more global approach to authority control.

0.019880032 = product of:
  0.06958011 = sum of:
    0.05023533 = weight(_text_:studies in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05023533 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1627809 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.30860704 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
    0.019344779 = product of:
      0.038689557 = sum of:
        0.038689557 = weight(_text_:22 in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038689557 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14285508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04079441 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 120, 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=120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Authority control has long been an important part of the cataloging process. However, few studies have been conducted examining how librarians learn about it. Research conducted to date suggests that many librarians learn about authority control on the job rather than in formal classes. To offer an introduction to authority control information for librarians, an annotated bibliography is provided. It includes monographs, articles and papers, electronic discussion groups, Web sites related to professional conferences, additional Web sites related to authority control, and training offered through the Name Authority Cooperative Program and the Subject Authority Cooperative Program. A summary of possible future trends in authority control is also provided.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.019393813 = product of:
  0.06787834 = sum of:
    0.024319848 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024319848 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
    0.043558497 = weight(_text_:case in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043558497 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17934912 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

From the very beginnings of library automation, subject authority control has been considered an important bibliographic tool in the Czech National Library (CNL). Effective subject access cannot exist without standardised access points. Subject authorities are considered an indispensable reference tool in supporting the selection of subject access points and normalizing content indexing. Most importantly, they are heavily relied upon when it comes to customisation of links between bibliographic records and subject access points in order to create a user-friendly subject browsing and searching environment. Because of the fact that the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) is widely used in Czech Libraries it has become a readily available language independent subject framework which can be complemented by a more user-friendly subject heading system. In this context, the subject authority control offers a means of enhancing subject headings' access points with terminology and the semantic links available in UDC. Furthermore classification is used to enrich relationships between authority records themselves. The author will discuss in more detail the different aspects and advantages of subject authorities in which a classification and a subject heading system complement one another and the way this is implemented in the CNL.

0.01525502 = product of:
  0.053392567 = sum of:
    0.03404779 = weight(_text_:libraries in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03404779 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
    0.019344779 = product of:
      0.038689557 = sum of:
        0.038689557 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038689557 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14285508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04079441 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 180, 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=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A variety of information communities have developed metadata schemes to meet the needs of their own users. The ability of libraries to incorporate and use multiple metadata schemes in current library systems will depend on the compatibility of imported data with existing catalog data. Authority control will play an important role in metadata interoperability. In this article, I discuss factors for successful authority control in current library catalogs, which include operation in a well-defined and bounded universe, application of principles and standard practices to access point creation, reference to authoritative lists, and bibliographic record creation by highly trained individuals. Metadata characteristics and environmental models are examined and the likelihood of successful authority control is explored for a variety of metadata environments.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.012445285 = product of:
  0.087116994 = sum of:
    0.087116994 = weight(_text_:case in 2307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.087116994 = score(doc=2307,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17934912 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.48573974 = fieldWeight in 2307, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2307)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.010896442 = product of:
  0.038137548 = sum of:
    0.024319848 = weight(_text_:libraries in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024319848 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
    0.0138177 = product of:
      0.0276354 = sum of:
        0.0276354 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0276354 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14285508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04079441 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.010896442 = product of:
  0.038137548 = sum of:
    0.024319848 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024319848 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 1291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1291)
    0.0138177 = product of:
      0.0276354 = sum of:
        0.0276354 = weight(_text_:22 in 1291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0276354 = score(doc=1291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14285508 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04079441 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1291, 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=1291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

More and more users index everything on their own in the web 2.0. There are services for links, videos, pictures, books, encyclopaedic articles and scientific articles. All these services are library independent. But must that really be? Can't libraries help with their experience and tools to make user indexing better? On the experience of a project from German language Wikipedia together with the German person authority files (Personen Namen Datei - PND) located at German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) I would like to show what is possible. How users can and will use the authority files, if we let them. We will take a look how the project worked and what we can learn for future projects. Conclusions - Authority files can have a role in the web 2.0 - there must be an open interface/ service for retrieval - everything that is indexed on the net with authority files can be easy integrated in a federated search - O'Reilly: You have to found ways that your data get more important that more it will be used

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.009322429 = product of:
  0.065257 = sum of:
    0.065257 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065257 = score(doc=2175,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.4869494 = fieldWeight in 2175, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2175)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Describes the experience of data conversion and migration at the libraries of the Home Office (HO) and the Dept. of the Environment (DoE), UK. Both HO and DoE libraries had changed from Anglo-American code cataloguing to AACR2 cataloguing in the mid-1970s. Both libraries were selective in identifying records for conversion initially to BLAISE-LOCAS. Conversion to integrated library systems from BLAISE-LOCAS MARC tapes produced problems in both libraries with location/holdings fields which were largely resolved at HO, but not resolved at DoE. HO experienced problems converting to a system with fixed field lengths. HO converted subject keywords to form a rudimentary, non-standard thesaurus which required the addition of Broader Term and Narrower Term to meet the challenge of computerized searching. DoE converted a non-thesaurus subject index to an authority file, but continued to maintain the index on a stand-alone DataEase application for use by cataloguers. Neither library converted acquisitions data

0.008699203 = product of:
  0.06089442 = sum of:
    0.06089442 = weight(_text_:studies in 676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06089442 = score(doc=676,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1627809 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 676, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=676)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Zu den Qualitätsanforderungen von Normdateien als Wissensorganisationssysteme gehört neben der eindeutigen Bestimmung des Begriffsumfangs einzelner Konzepte, der konsistenten terminologischen Kontrolle und Anreicherung durch Synonyme auch die Aktualität und Wissenschaftsnähe der Terminologie. Bereits in der sich in der BRD seit den 1970er-Jahren entwickelnden Frauenforschung spielte der Begriff "Geschlecht" eine zentrale Rolle. Der in den 1990er-/2000er-Jahren hier entstehenden Geschlechterforschung gab er ihren Namen.Seit dieser Zeit ist auch der Fachbegriff "Gender" aus der angloamerikanischen Forschung in der deutschen Geschlechterforschung/Gender Studies zur zentralen Kategorie geworden. In der GND ist er als eigenständiger Sachbegriff bisher nicht vorhanden.Da (nicht nur) die Geschlechterforschung/Gender Studies das Schlagwort Gender zur Beschlagwortung ihrer Fachliteratur benötigt, schlagen wir seine Aufnahme in die GND vor.

0.0084246425 = product of:
  0.058972497 = sum of:
    0.058972497 = weight(_text_:libraries in 557) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058972497 = score(doc=557,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.4400543 = fieldWeight in 557, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=557)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A sample was taken of the name and title provisional, or minimal level, authority records created by Blackwell North America, Inc., during its authority control processing in preparation for the implementation of NOTIS at the State Univerity of New York at Buffalo Libraries. Analysis of the sample showed that approximately 10 % of theses provisional records were created unnecessarily, while approximately 7 % had Library of Congress Name Authority File recordsestablished since the vendor's work was completed. The remaining 83 %, which will require original authority work in order to be upgraded to 'full' status, are categorized in such a manner as to determine the best approach to achieving the libraries' goal of absolute authority control.

0.0084246425 = product of:
  0.058972497 = sum of:
    0.058972497 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058972497 = score(doc=5801,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.4400543 = fieldWeight in 5801, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5801)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Some international libraries are still using the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition revised, for cataloging even though the Library of Congress and other large libraries have retired it in favor of Resource Description and Access. One of these libraries is the National Library of Greece, which consults the Library of Congress database before establishing authorities. There are cultural differences in names and subjects between the Library of Congress and the National Library, but some National Library terms may be more appropriate for users than the Library of Congress-established forms.

0.007861363 = product of:
  0.055029534 = sum of:
    0.055029534 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055029534 = score(doc=5690,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.4106318 = fieldWeight in 5690, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5690)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

To give a national basis to the considerations developed at IFLA with FRANAR, a working group devoted to modelling authority data was created in the framework of the French Organization for Standardization (AFNOR) in 2000. The Working Group aims at developing interoperability among libraries, archives and museums. Composition, goals, and the working plan of this Group are presented.

0.0068786917 = product of:
  0.04815084 = sum of:
    0.04815084 = weight(_text_:libraries in 442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04815084 = score(doc=442,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 442, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=442)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

During the years 1984-85, the arrival of an integrated automated library system (NOTIS) forced Auburn University Libraries to reevaluate the status of its name authority system. Central to the evaluation process was the preservation of the major investment made in the card name authority file as a result of AACR2. To achieve this, a process of migrating the valuable information from the card file into an online environment was developed. The final result of this process was a new authority structure with current and potential capabilities superior to the previous manual system.

0.0068786917 = product of:
  0.04815084 = sum of:
    0.04815084 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04815084 = score(doc=2619,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 2619, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2619)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

To investigate which authority data elements are recorded by libraries in the Chinese character cultural sphere (e.g., Japan, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Vietnam), data elements recorded by each library were examined and compared to authority data elements defined in the standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) design. Recommendations were then made to libraries within this cultural sphere to improve and internationally standardize their authority data. In addition, suggestions are provided to modify RDA in an effort to increase compatibility with authority data in the Chinese character cultural sphere.

0.0068786917 = product of:
  0.04815084 = sum of:
    0.04815084 = weight(_text_:libraries in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04815084 = score(doc=698,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13401186 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.35930282 = fieldWeight in 698, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=698)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The concept of authorship is central to how libraries organize their collections. But libraries do not only collect resources created by individuals, they also collect documents issued by organizations. Library catalogers use the concept of a "corporate body" to treat organizations as authors for the purpose of making their documents discoverable to users. This essay looks at the key features of establishing authorized access points (AAPs) and applying authority control for corporate bodies. It examines how practices with regard to corporate bodies have changed over time and considers the changes catalogers might expect to see in the future.

0.0062226425 = product of:
  0.043558497 = sum of:
    0.043558497 = weight(_text_:case in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043558497 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17934912 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

We illustrate the principle of unified treatment of all authority data for any kind of entities, subjects/topics, places, events, persons, organizations, etc. through the design and implementation of an enriched authority database for organizations, maintained as an integral part of an authority database that also includes subject authority control / classification data, using the same structures for data and common modules for processing and display of data. Organization-related data are stored in information systems of many companies. We specifically examine the case of the World Bank Group (WBG) according to organization role: suppliers, partners, customers, competitors, authors, publishers, or subjects of documents, loan recipients, suppliers for WBG-funded projects and subunits of the organization itself. A central organization authority where each organization is identified by a URI, represented by several names and linked to other organizations through hierarchical and other relationships serves to link data from these disparate information systems. Designing the conceptual structure of a unified authority database requires integrating SKOS, the W3C Organization Ontology and other schemes into one comprehensive ontology. To populate the authority database with organizations, we import data from external sources (e.g., DBpedia and Library of Congress authorities) and internal sources (e.g., the lists of organizations from multiple WBG information systems).

0.0062226425 = product of:
  0.043558497 = sum of:
    0.043558497 = weight(_text_:case in 5642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043558497 = score(doc=5642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17934912 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04079441 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 5642, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5642)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)