Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029167322 = product of:
  0.11666929 = sum of:
    0.037798867 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.037798867 = score(doc=5480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
    0.07887042 = weight(_text_:studies in 5480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07887042 = score(doc=5480,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.016484251 = product of:
  0.065937005 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.010578179 = product of:
  0.08462543 = sum of:
    0.08462543 = weight(_text_:case in 2307) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08462543 = score(doc=2307,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0058467137 = product of:
  0.04677371 = sum of:
    0.04677371 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2619) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04677371 = score(doc=2619,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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).

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 5642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=5642,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.004697611 = product of:
  0.03758089 = sum of:
    0.03758089 = product of:
      0.07516178 = sum of:
        0.07516178 = weight(_text_:area in 5490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07516178 = score(doc=5490,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.38494104 = fieldWeight in 5490, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

We aim to trace the scenario of the use of controlled vocabularies as tools of research and work in the scope of representation and retrieval of information in institutions that have archival collections, in order to highlight the need for greater emphasis on the subject of representation of archival information in the academic field, increasing the visibility for the study and analysis of the collections in question and their contents, relevant to the information society. We investigate the current scenario of the use of controlled vocabularies in the archival collections of Rio de Janeiro, the theoretical-methodological changes arising from the impacts of information technologies on analysis, representation, such as classification and indexing, content retrieval, information needs in the contemporary world. The representation of information is associated with classification and retrieval of information to the organization of knowledge in information science. There is a gap in the archival area regarding the expression representation of information from the description of the nineteenth century. As for the theoretical-methodological aspect, there was a theoretical survey of the representation of information in publications in the interdisciplinary areas; as to the op-erational methodology, questionnaires were applied to information agencies on the use of controlled vocabularies, in relation to the treatment of information in archival collections. We conclude by demonstrating the importance of adopting the concept of information representation in archives, using controlled vocabularies associated with new information technologies and informational ecology, consolidating the area as a scientific and interdisciplinary field for information science.

0.0041342513 = product of:
  0.03307401 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1884) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=1884,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 1884, 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=1884)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article shares a vision of the enterprise of cataloging and the role of catalogers and metadata librarians in the twenty-first century. The revolutionary opportunities now presented by Semantic Web technologies liberate catalogers from their historically analog-based static world, re-conceptualize it, and transform it into a world of high dimensionality and fluidity. By presenting illustrative examples of innovative metadata creation and manipulation, such as non-MARC name authority records, we seek to contribute to the libraries' mission with innovative projects that enable discovery, development, communication, learning, and creativity, and hold promise to exceed users' expectations.

0.0041342513 = product of:
  0.03307401 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=1939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 1939, 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=1939)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This article describes the project to build the initial International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) database by deploying the techniques used to develop the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF). It focuses particularly on the work of the OCLC team in transforming the VIAF "resource file" model of matched data into a robust, operational, and authoritative file of uniquely assigned ISNIs as a base for an ongoing ISNI assignment system, and on the quality assurance validation of the database provided by the British Library and the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The need for future interaction between ongoing ISNI assignment and name authority control in libraries is also explored.

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 310, 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=310)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Beyond libraries - subject metadata in the digital environment and semantic web. IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=1802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 1802, 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=1802)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The German subject headings authority file - SWD - provides a terminologically controlled vocabulary, covering all fields of knowledge. The subject headings are determined by the German Rules for the Subject Catalogue. The authority file is produced and updated daily by participating libraries from around Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Over the last twenty years, it grew to an online-accessible database with about 550.000 headings. They are linked to other thesauri, also to French and English equivalents and with notations of the Dewey Decimal Classification. Thus, it allows multilingual access and searching in dispersed, heterogeneously indexed catalogues. The vocabulary is not only used for cataloguing library materials, but also web-resources and objects in archives and museums.

0.0033409793 = product of:
  0.026727835 = sum of:
    0.026727835 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026727835 = score(doc=3876,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2053159 = fieldWeight in 3876, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3876)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Every standard embodies a particular set of values. Some aspects are privileged while others are masked. Values embedded within knowledge organization standards have special import in that they are further perpetuated by the data they are used to generate. Within libraries, descriptive catalog codes serve as prominent knowledge organization standards, guiding the creation of resource representations. Though the historical and functional aspects of these standards have received significant attention, less focus has been placed on the values associated with such codes. In this study, a critical, historical analysis of ten Anglo-American descriptive catalog codes and surrounding discourse was conducted as an initial step towards uncovering key values associated with this lineage of standards. Two values in particular were found to be highly significant: authority and universalism. Authority is closely tied to notions of power and control, particularly over practice or belief. Increasing control over resources, identities, and viewpoints are all manifestations of the value of authority within descriptive codes. Universalism has guided the widening coverage of descriptive codes in regards to settings and materials, such as the extension of bibliographic standards to non-book resources. Together, authority and universalism represent conventional values focused on facilitating orderly social exchanges. A comparative lack of emphasis on values concerning human welfare and empowerment may be unsurprising, but raises questions concerning the role of human values in knowledge organization standards. Further attention to the values associated with descriptive codes and other knowledge organization standards is important as libraries and other institutions seek to share their resource representation data more widely

0.0029530365 = product of:
  0.023624292 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=1970,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 1970, 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=1970)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Footnote

Contribution in a special issue "Beyond libraries: Subject metadata in the digital environment and Semantic Web" - Enthält Beiträge der gleichnamigen IFLA Satellite Post-Conference, 17-18 August 2012, Tallinn.

0.0029530365 = product of:
  0.023624292 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 2288, 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=2288)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Bibliographic data is used to describe resources held in the collections of libraries, archives and museums. That data is mostly available on the Web today and mostly as linked data. Also on the Web are the controlled vocabulary systems of name authority files, like the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF), classification systems, and subject terms. These systems offer their own linked data to potentially help users find the information they want - whether at their local library or anywhere in the world that is willing to make their resources available. We have found it beneficial to merge authority data for names on a global level, as the entities are relatively clear. That is not true for subject concepts and terminology that have categorisation systems developed according to varying principles and schemes and are in multiple languages. Rather than requiring everyone in the world to use the same categorisation/classification system in the same language, we know that the Web offers us the opportunity to add descriptors assigned around the world using multiple systems from multiple perspectives to identify our resources. Those descriptors add value to refine searches, help users worldwide and share globally what each library does locally.

0.0029530365 = product of:
  0.023624292 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2295) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=2295,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 2295, 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=2295)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The paper provides an illustration of the benefits of subject authority control improving multilingual subject access in NEBIS - Netzwerk von Bibliotheken und Informationsstellen in der Schweiz. This example of good practice focuses on some important aspects of classification and indexing. NEBIS subject authorities comprise a classification scheme and multilingual subject descriptor system. A bibliographic system supported by subject authority control empowers libraries as it enables them to expand and adjust vocabulary and link subjects to suit their specific audience. Most importantly it allows the management of different subject vocabularies in numerous languages. In addition, such an enriched subject index creates re-usable and shareable source of subject statements that has value in the wider context of information exchange. The illustrations and supporting arguments are based on indexing practice, subject authority control and use of classification in ETH-Bibliothek, which is the largest library within the NEBIS network.

0.0023624292 = product of:
  0.018899433 = sum of:
    0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018899433 = score(doc=2303,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 2303, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2303)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Authority control is a standard practice in the library community that provides consistent, unique, and unambiguous reference to entities such as persons, places, concepts, etc. The ideal way of referring to authority records through unique identifiers is in line with the current linked data principle. When presenting a bibliographic record, the linked authority records are expanded with the authoritative information. This way, any update in the authority records will not affect the indexing of the bibliographic records. The structural information in the authority files can also be leveraged to expand the user's query to retrieve bibliographic records associated with all the variations, narrower terms or related terms. However, in many digital libraries, especially largescale aggregations such as WorldCat and Europeana, name strings are often used instead of authority record identifiers. This is also partly due to the lack of global authority records that are valid across countries and cultural heritage domains. But even when there are global authority systems, they are not applied at scale. For example, in WorldCat, only 15% of the records have DDC and 3% have UDC codes; less than 40% of the records have one or more topical terms catalogued in the 650 MARC field, many of which are too general (such as "sports" or "literature") to be useful for retrieving bibliographic records. Therefore, when a user query is based on a Dewey code, the results usually have high precision but the recall is much lower than it should be; and, a search on a general topical term returns millions of hits without being even complete. All these practices make it difficult to leverage the key benefits of authority files. This is also true for authority files that have been transformed into linked data and enriched with mapping information. There are practical reasons for using name strings instead of identifiers. One is the indexing and query response. The future infrastructure design should take the performance into account while embracing the benefit of linking instead of copying, without introducing extra complexity to users. Notwithstanding all the restrictions, we argue that largescale aggregations also bring new opportunities for better exploiting the benefits of authority records. It is possible to use machine learning techniques to automatically link bibliographic records to authority records based on the manual input of cataloguers. Text mining and visualization techniques can offer a contextual view of authority records, which in return can be used to retrieve missing or mis-catalogued records. In this talk, we will describe such opportunities in more detail.

0.0020133762 = product of:
  0.01610701 = sum of:
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 3502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=3502,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3502, 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=3502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Archivar. 70(2017) H.1, S.22-25

0.0016778135 = product of:
  0.013422508 = sum of:
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 3780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=3780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3780, 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=3780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

19. 8.2017 9:24:22