Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.030774718 = product of:
  0.0769368 = sum of:
    0.03168142 = weight(_text_:education in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03168142 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.1561572 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.045255374 = weight(_text_:great in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045255374 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.18663573 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.
The Library of Congress must begin by prioritizing the recommendations that are directed in whole or in part at LC. Some define tasks that can be achieved immediately and with moderate effort; others will require analysis and planning that will have to be coordinated broadly and carefully. The Working Group has consciously not associated time frames with any of its recommendations. The recommendations fall into five general areas: 1. Increase the efficiency of bibliographic production for all libraries through increased cooperation and increased sharing of bibliographic records, and by maximizing the use of data produced throughout the entire "supply chain" for information resources. 2. Transfer effort into higher-value activity. In particular, expand the possibilities for knowledge creation by "exposing" rare and unique materials held by libraries that are currently hidden from view and, thus, underused. 3. Position our technology for the future by recognizing that the World Wide Web is both our technology platform and the appropriate platform for the delivery of our standards. Recognize that people are not the only users of the data we produce in the name of bibliographic control, but so too are machine applications that interact with those data in a variety of ways. 4. Position our community for the future by facilitating the incorporation of evaluative and other user-supplied information into our resource descriptions. Work to realize the potential of the FRBR framework for revealing and capitalizing on the various relationships that exist among information resources. 5. Strengthen the library profession through education and the development of metrics that will inform decision-making now and in the future. The Working Group intends what follows to serve as a broad blueprint for the Library of Congress and its colleagues in the library and information technology communities for extending and promoting access to information resources.

0.02880378 = product of:
  0.07200945 = sum of:
    0.060340498 = weight(_text_:great in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060340498 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.011668953 = product of:
      0.023337906 = sum of:
        0.023337906 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023337906 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Despite the existence of a logical structural model for bibliographic records which integrates any record type, library catalogues persist in offering catalogue records at the level of 'items'. Such records however, do not clearly indicate which works they contain. Hence the search possibilities of the end user are unduly limited. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) present through a conceptual model, independent of any cataloguing code or implementation, a globalized view of the bibliographic universe. This model, a synthesis of the existing cataloguing rules, consists of clearly structured entities and well defined types of relationships among them. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model is likely to be a good knowledge organiser with great potential in identifying the author and the work represented by an item or publication and is able to link different works of the author with different editions, translations or adaptations of those works aiming at better answering the user needs. This paper is presenting an interpretation of the FRBR model opposing it to a traditional bibliographic record of a complex library material.

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22

0.025607789 = product of:
  0.12803894 = sum of:
    0.12803894 = weight(_text_:education in 2439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12803894 = score(doc=2439,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.63110185 = fieldWeight in 2439, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2439)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports results of the 2 studies: "Retrospective conversion of library catalogues in institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom: a study of the justification for a national programme" and "Retrospective conversion for libraries in the UK other than those funded by the Higher Education Funding Councils". The latter study was on behalf of libraries other than national ones: public; learned and scientific society; professional; and religious. Covers: the scale of UK retrospective conversion issues, opportunities and need for a national strategy; retrospective conversion in an international context; conversion of library catalogues in UK higher education institutions; and catalogues in other UK libraries

0.014784663 = product of:
  0.07392331 = sum of:
    0.07392331 = weight(_text_:education in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07392331 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.3643668 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Cataloguing education has been the focus of definition and ebate for over a century. Moving beyond cataloguing theory and the creation of records, to the management and process of producing catalogues, increases the complexity of demands placed on professionals and educators. Graduates need to understand their catalogues and integrated systems holistically. This requires a knowledge of each element, of standards governing the creation and maintenance of records, and of the relationship between the record and the catalogue and/or its constituent network. Moreover, the professional must know these things critically, and beyond mere acceptance of standards, so that the catalogue can effectively perform its mediating function between the collection and users

0.012068099 = product of:
  0.060340498 = sum of:
    0.060340498 = weight(_text_:great in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060340498 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2424797 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In the last decade a discussion has been going an in the Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) about the principles of cataloguing. This discussion was initiated by the widespread replacement of the card and list catalogues by Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) since 1980. In this paper we discuss the role of subject cataloguing in three important documents that are the results of this discussion. Our conclusion is that the interest in subject cataloguing has grown remarkably, but is still not an the level it deserves given the fact that a great part of all searches in OPACs are subject oriented.

0.010560473 = product of:
  0.052802365 = sum of:
    0.052802365 = weight(_text_:education in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052802365 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.260262 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.

0.009335163 = product of:
  0.046675812 = sum of:
    0.046675812 = product of:
      0.093351625 = sum of:
        0.093351625 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093351625 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, 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=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.009335163 = product of:
  0.046675812 = sum of:
    0.046675812 = product of:
      0.093351625 = sum of:
        0.093351625 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.093351625 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, 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=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.008448379 = product of:
  0.042241894 = sum of:
    0.042241894 = weight(_text_:education in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042241894 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20288157 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043063257 = queryNorm
        0.2082096 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7112455 = idf(docFreq=1080, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Auf S.1108 findet sich folgende Fehler-Statistik: "So misslangen 17,4% aller Anfragen, weil nicht RSWK/SWD-gerechtes Suchvokabular verwendet wurde. Drei Viertel davon konnten zu gleichen Teilen auf - nicht in der SWD vorhandene Komposita (wie "Industriedenkmalstiftung", "Menschenrechtsdidaktik") - fremdsprachige Begriffe (wie "education nazie", "US youth") und - Pluralverwendung (wie "neuronale Netze", "Bildungssysteme USA"), sowie weitere 13,5% auf - Postkoordination (wie "Hildesheimer Dom", "Preußischer Landtag") zurückgeführt werden. Bei nahezu 25% der Recherchen scheiterten die Kunden bereits an der Bedienung des OPAC. Einerseits schränkten sie ihre Suchen durch Belegung zu vieler Felder respektive Eingabe zu vieler Begriffe in ein Suchfeld zu sehr ein (10,6%). Andererseits gaben sie richtiges Vokabular in das falsche Feld ein und beachteten Normierungen bei einzelnen Kriterien - wie beispielsweise bei der Autorensuche - nicht (falsche Eingabe 12,1 %). Weitere Ursachen, wie Tippfehler oder tatsächlich nicht vorhandener Bestand, summierten sich auf eher marginale 5,0%."

0.0070013716 = product of:
  0.03500686 = sum of:
    0.03500686 = product of:
      0.07001372 = sum of:
        0.07001372 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07001372 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.0070013716 = product of:
  0.03500686 = sum of:
    0.03500686 = product of:
      0.07001372 = sum of:
        0.07001372 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07001372 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.0070013716 = product of:
  0.03500686 = sum of:
    0.03500686 = product of:
      0.07001372 = sum of:
        0.07001372 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07001372 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.0058344766 = product of:
  0.029172383 = sum of:
    0.029172383 = product of:
      0.058344766 = sum of:
        0.058344766 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058344766 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243

0.0058344766 = product of:
  0.029172383 = sum of:
    0.029172383 = product of:
      0.058344766 = sum of:
        0.058344766 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058344766 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0058344766 = product of:
  0.029172383 = sum of:
    0.029172383 = product of:
      0.058344766 = sum of:
        0.058344766 = weight(_text_:22 in 2411) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058344766 = score(doc=2411,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2411, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2411)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

20. 4.2020 20:22:29

0.004950718 = product of:
  0.02475359 = sum of:
    0.02475359 = product of:
      0.04950718 = sum of:
        0.04950718 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04950718 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
19. 6.2010 19:22:28

0.0046675815 = product of:
  0.023337906 = sum of:
    0.023337906 = product of:
      0.046675812 = sum of:
        0.046675812 = weight(_text_:22 in 3053) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046675812 = score(doc=3053,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3053, 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=3053)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.1999 20:40:57

0.0046675815 = product of:
  0.023337906 = sum of:
    0.023337906 = product of:
      0.046675812 = sum of:
        0.046675812 = weight(_text_:22 in 5581) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046675812 = score(doc=5581,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5581, 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=5581)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.97-103

0.0046675815 = product of:
  0.023337906 = sum of:
    0.023337906 = product of:
      0.046675812 = sum of:
        0.046675812 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046675812 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, 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=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0046675815 = product of:
  0.023337906 = sum of:
    0.023337906 = product of:
      0.046675812 = sum of:
        0.046675812 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046675812 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15080018 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043063257 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 256, 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=256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22