Search (420 results, page 1 of 21)

0.08306853 = product of:
  0.29073983 = sum of:
    0.15479024 = weight(_text_:great in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15479024 = score(doc=2161,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.7038474 = fieldWeight in 2161, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2161)
    0.1359496 = product of:
      0.2718992 = sum of:
        0.2718992 = weight(_text_:britain in 2161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2718992 = score(doc=2161,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.29147226 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.9328476 = fieldWeight in 2161, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

LCSH

Descriptive cataloging / Great Britain / Rules / History

Subject

Descriptive cataloging / Great Britain / Rules / History

0.073422894 = product of:
  0.25698012 = sum of:
    0.13681653 = weight(_text_:great in 694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13681653 = score(doc=694,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.62211907 = fieldWeight in 694, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=694)
    0.120163605 = product of:
      0.24032721 = sum of:
        0.24032721 = weight(_text_:britain in 694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24032721 = score(doc=694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29147226 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.8245286 = fieldWeight in 694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=694)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

0.052058272 = product of:
  0.1214693 = sum of:
    0.023504408 = weight(_text_:based in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023504408 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
    0.08208992 = weight(_text_:great in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08208992 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
    0.015874967 = product of:
      0.031749934 = sum of:
        0.031749934 = weight(_text_:22 in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031749934 = score(doc=122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 122, 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=122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) data model holds great potential for improving access to library resources, but may not affect all libraries in the same way. The Joint Steering Committee for Revision of AACR (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules), assisted by the work of its Format Variation Working Group, is exploring ways to incorporate FRBR into the next edition of the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules to facilitate collocation at the level of the FRBR entity expression. Several library system vendors are also adding FRBR-based functionality to their systems. A combination of these two approaches to FRBR can provide significant benefits to users. Most FRBR entities and attributes are already present in library catalog records, and the influence of FRBR can also be seen in existing library activities. FRBR is thus not something totally foreign, but a fresh, more rigorous way of thinking about what libraries already do that provides a basis for designing new ways to improve users' access to library resources.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.03519811 = product of:
  0.12319338 = sum of:
    0.02742181 = weight(_text_:based in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02742181 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
    0.09577157 = weight(_text_:great in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09577157 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

For at least 100 years, cataloguers have been committed to creating perfect bibliographic records of their local resources for their local users. With the advent of automation, shared cataloguing and electronic remote resources, their task has been made much more complex as their product has become universally available and visible; and, contrary to earlier naive expectations, much more expensive. As a profession, they survived automation and adapted, but now contracting out (outsourcing) has become a new threat to their very existence, or at least to their numbers working at local libraries. Based on a great number of calls for change in the library literature, appeals to cataloguers to make a concerted effort to change the way they do things as their product is still essential for good library service

0.032058902 = product of:
  0.112206146 = sum of:
    0.04379788 = weight(_text_:based in 5385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04379788 = score(doc=5385,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.37218451 = fieldWeight in 5385, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5385)
    0.068408266 = weight(_text_:great in 5385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408266 = score(doc=5385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 5385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5385)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Authorship analysis attempts to reveal information about authors of digital documents enabling applications in digital humanities, text forensics, and cyber-security. Author verification is a fundamental task where, given a set of texts written by a certain author, we should decide whether another text is also by that author. In this article we systematically study the usefulness of topic modeling in author verification. We examine several author verification methods that cover the main paradigms, namely, intrinsic (attempt to solve a one-class classification task) and extrinsic (attempt to solve a binary classification task) methods as well as profile-based (all documents of known authorship are treated cumulatively) and instance-based (each document of known authorship is treated separately) approaches combined with well-known topic modeling methods such as Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) and Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). We use benchmark data sets and demonstrate that LDA is better combined with extrinsic methods, while the most effective intrinsic method is based on LSI. Moreover, topic modeling seems to be particularly effective for profile-based approaches and the performance is enhanced when latent topics are extracted by an enriched set of documents. The comparison to state-of-the-art methods demonstrates the great potential of the approaches presented in this study. It is also demonstrates that even when genre-agnostic external documents are used, the proposed extrinsic models are very competitive.

0.02798997 = product of:
  0.09796489 = sum of:
    0.08208992 = weight(_text_:great in 161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08208992 = score(doc=161,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 161, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=161)
    0.015874967 = product of:
      0.031749934 = sum of:
        0.031749934 = weight(_text_:22 in 161) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031749934 = score(doc=161,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 161, 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=161)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article describes the use of the World Wide Web as a valuable name authority resource and tool for special collections analytic-level cataloging and the specific goal of fully discovering the names of people who lived in the past as well as those from the present. Current tools and initiatives such as the Name Authority Component of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (NACO) and the Library of Congress Name Authority File have a specific mission and are partially helpful. Web resources encompassing special collections are often intricate and require global and enhanced resources to continue what have been the guiding principles, tradition, and value of cataloging: to discover works via many points of entry; to find works by or about the same person, topic, or title; and to continue the great cataloging legacies of standards and cooperation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.027459566 = product of:
  0.096108474 = sum of:
    0.02770021 = weight(_text_:based in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02770021 = score(doc=4247,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
    0.068408266 = weight(_text_:great in 4247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408266 = score(doc=4247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4247)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Purpose Considerable effort is devoted to developing new models for organizing bibliographic metadata. However, such models have been repeatedly criticized for their lack of proper user testing. The purpose of this paper is to present a study on how non-experts in bibliographic systems map the bibliographic universe and, in particular, how they conceptualize relationships between independent but strongly related entities. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on an open concept-mapping task performed to externalize the conceptualizations of 98 novice students. The conceptualizations of the resulting concept maps are identified and analyzed statistically. Findings The study shows that the participants' conceptualizations have great variety, differing in detail and granularity. These conceptualizations can be categorized into two main groups according to derivative relationships: those that apply a single-entity model directly relating document entities and those (the majority) that apply a multi-entity model relating documents through a high-level collocating node. These high-level nodes seem to be most adequately interpreted either as superwork devices collocating documents belonging to the same bibliographic family or as devices collocating documents belonging to a shared fictional world. Originality/value The findings can guide the work to develop bibliographic standards. Based on the diversity of the conceptualizations, the findings also emphasize the need for more user testing of both conceptual models and the bibliographic end-user systems implementing those models.

0.027459566 = product of:
  0.096108474 = sum of:
    0.02770021 = weight(_text_:based in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02770021 = score(doc=93,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
    0.068408266 = weight(_text_:great in 93) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408266 = score(doc=93,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 93, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=93)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The recognition of named entities in Spanish medieval texts presents great complexity, involving specific challenges: First, the complex morphosyntactic characteristics in proper-noun use in medieval texts. Second, the lack of strict orthographic standards. Finally, diachronic and geographical variations in Spanish from the 12th to 15th century. In this period, named entities usually appear as complex text structure. For example, it was frequent to add nicknames and information about the persons role in society and geographic origin. To tackle this complexity, named entity recognition and classification system has been implemented. The system uses contextual cues based on semantics to detect entities and assign a type. Given the occurrence of entities with attached attributes, entity contexts are also parsed to determine entity-type-specific dependencies for these attributes. Moreover, it uses a variant generator to handle the diachronic evolution of Spanish medieval terms from a phonetic and morphosyntactic viewpoint. The tool iteratively enriches its proper lexica, dictionaries, and gazetteers. The system was evaluated on a corpus of over 3,000 manually annotated entities of different types and periods, obtaining F1 scores between 0.74 and 0.87. Attribute annotation was evaluated for a person and role name attributes with an overall F1 of 0.75.

0.017966796 = product of:
  0.06288378 = sum of:
    0.047008816 = weight(_text_:based in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047008816 = score(doc=71,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.39947033 = fieldWeight in 71, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=71)
    0.015874967 = product of:
      0.031749934 = sum of:
        0.031749934 = weight(_text_:22 in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031749934 = score(doc=71,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 71, 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=71)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Cataloging rules for computer-based materials were first introduced in the 1970s, and since then have undergone almost continuous modification and revision. This article focuses on analysis and comparison of the various codes and guidelines for practice issued for what are now called electronic resources. Creation of new cataloging rules has been spurred by introduction of new physical carriers, the preeminence of materials accessed remotely versus those with physical carriers, the need for guidance in cataloging specific instances of computer-based materials, and the evolution of the theoretical concerns underlying the cataloging codes. Based on this history of constant change, it is easy to predict many more changes in the cataloging standards for computer-based materials in the future. However, continuous changes in the cataloging rules may have produced as much confusion as clarity for working catalogers. Caution should be exercised in the creation of new rules and standards for cataloging electronic resources, as it is possible that older rules and standards may, in fact, be readily adapted to new types of electronic resources.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.01637174 = product of:
  0.05730109 = sum of:
    0.038780294 = weight(_text_:based in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038780294 = score(doc=5162,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 5162, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5162)
    0.018520795 = product of:
      0.03704159 = sum of:
        0.03704159 = weight(_text_:22 in 5162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03704159 = score(doc=5162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5162, 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=5162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The Bradford OPAC is an experimental prototype OPAC, with a graphical user interface, based on the manifestation concept. It was designed to study some of the problems in catalogues where there are many versions of the same work or complex multipart works. In place of the main entry based approach of one complete record for each item, the OPAC groups together into sets items that are manifestations of the same work. Users are presented with shorter lists of different intellectual works. Items in a set can be sorted, searched and displayed according to user supplied criteria

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.3-28

0.01637174 = product of:
  0.05730109 = sum of:
    0.038780294 = weight(_text_:based in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038780294 = score(doc=2425,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 2425, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2425)
    0.018520795 = product of:
      0.03704159 = sum of:
        0.03704159 = weight(_text_:22 in 2425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03704159 = score(doc=2425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2425, 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=2425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The FRBR model is by many considered to be an important contribution to the next generation of bibliographic catalogues, but a major challenge for the library community is how to use this model on already existing MARC-based bibliographic catalogues. This problem requires a solution for the interpretation and conversion of MARC records, and a tool for this kind of conversion is developed as a part of the Norwegian BIBSYS FRBR project. The tool is based on a systematic approach to the interpretation and conversion process and is designed to be adaptable to the rules applied in different catalogues.

Source

Research and advanced technology for digital libraries : 10th European conference, proceedings / ECDL 2006, Alicante, Spain, September 17 - 22, 2006

0.015636176 = product of:
  0.10945322 = sum of:
    0.10945322 = weight(_text_:great in 1561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10945322 = score(doc=1561,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.49769527 = fieldWeight in 1561, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1561)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

The PICS, an initiative of W3C, is a technology that supports the association of descriptive labels with Web resources. By providing a single common transport syntax for metadata, PICS will support the growth of metadata systems (including library cataloguing) that are interoperable and widely supported in Web information systems. Within the PICS framework, a great diversity of resource description models can be implemented, from simple rating schemes to complex data content standards

0.015084905 = product of:
  0.052797165 = sum of:
    0.011752204 = weight(_text_:based in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011752204 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.09986758 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
    0.04104496 = weight(_text_:great in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04104496 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.015001667 = product of:
  0.052505832 = sum of:
    0.03133921 = weight(_text_:based in 2336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03133921 = score(doc=2336,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 2336, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2336)
    0.021166623 = product of:
      0.042333245 = sum of:
        0.042333245 = weight(_text_:22 in 2336) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042333245 = score(doc=2336,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2336, 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=2336)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Offers advice on avaluating alternative cataloguing sources. The steps should be: identify the possible providers; network for advice; test or sample attractive systems; develop criteria based on library size, type and location (e.g. cost and equipment needs, currency of records, types of materials accessed, customer service and reputation of vendor, impact on staff/time and other library services and ability to share or network information); and evaluate the possible services; and implement the new service

Date

17.10.1995 18:22:54

0.015001667 = product of:
  0.052505832 = sum of:
    0.03133921 = weight(_text_:based in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03133921 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.021166623 = product of:
      0.042333245 = sum of:
        0.042333245 = weight(_text_:22 in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042333245 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The paper performs a thought experiment on the concept of a record based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records and library system functions, and concludes that if we want to develop a functional bibliographic record we need to do it within the context of a flexible, functional library systems record structure. The article suggests a new way to look at the library systems record that would allow libraries to move forward in terms of technology but also in terms of serving library users.

Source

Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.166-174

0.013681654 = product of:
  0.09577157 = sum of:
    0.09577157 = weight(_text_:great in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09577157 = score(doc=967,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Internet resources have brought great excitement but also grave concerns to the library world, especially to the cataloging community. In spite of the various problematic aspects presented by Internet resources (poorly organized, lack of stability, variable quality), catalogers have decided that they are worth cataloging, in particular those meeting library selection criteria. This paper tries to trace the decade-long history of the library comrnunity's efforts in providing an effective way to catalog Internet resources. Basically, its olbjective is to answer the following questions: Why catalog? What to catalog? and, How to catalog. Some issues of cataloging electronic journals and developments of the Dublin Core Metadata system are also discussed.

0.013681654 = product of:
  0.09577157 = sum of:
    0.09577157 = weight(_text_:great in 5479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09577157 = score(doc=5479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 5479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5479)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Semantic interoperability between Resource Description and Access (RDA) and BIBFRAME models is of great interest to the library community. In this context, this work investigates the mapping of core entities, inherent and derivative relationships from RDA to BIBFRAME, and proposes mapping rules assessed using two gold datasets. Findings indicate that RDA core entities and inherent relationships can be successfully mapped to BIBFRAME using the bf:hasExpression property, while extending bf:hasExpression as transitive simplifies BIBFRAME representations. Moreover, mapping derivative relationships between RDA Expressions was successful with loss of specificity in non-translation cases. The mapping of derivative relationships between RDA Works produced "noisy" bf:hasDerivative occurrences in BIBFRAME.

0.013681654 = product of:
  0.09577157 = sum of:
    0.09577157 = weight(_text_:great in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09577157 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The bibliographic work has assumed a great deal of importance in modern cataloging. But the concept of the work has existed for over a century, and even some of the earliest catalog codes differentiate between the intellectual work and its instances. This article will delve into the history and theory of the work, providing a basic overview of the concept as well as a summary of the myriad uses of the work throughout the history of cataloging. In addition to monographs, this paper will look at the work as applied to music, moving images, serials, and aggregates.

0.013126459 = product of:
  0.045942605 = sum of:
    0.02742181 = weight(_text_:based in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02742181 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 735, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=735)
    0.018520795 = product of:
      0.03704159 = sum of:
        0.03704159 = weight(_text_:22 in 735) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03704159 = score(doc=735,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 735, 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=735)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Part 1 of a series of articles, exploring the concept of 'the work' in cataloguing practice, which attempts to construct a definition of the term based on AACR theory and practice. The study begins with a consideration of the objects of the catalogue, their history and the evidence that bears on the question of the degree to which the user needs access to the work, as opposed to a particular edition of the work

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Pt.2: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 19(1994) no.2, S.5-22; Pt.3: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.1, S.25-46; Pt.4: Cataloging and classification quarterly. 20(1995) no.2, S.3-24

0.013126459 = product of:
  0.045942605 = sum of:
    0.02742181 = weight(_text_:based in 6733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02742181 = score(doc=6733,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23302436 = fieldWeight in 6733, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6733)
    0.018520795 = product of:
      0.03704159 = sum of:
        0.03704159 = weight(_text_:22 in 6733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03704159 = score(doc=6733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6733, 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=6733)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The Electronic Text Center, Virginia University, has been mounting SGML full text databases online since 1992 and is actively building a user community around this Internet based resource. Reports the Library's efforts to integrate these databases into the training, cataloguing, preservation and collection development areas of the library's operations with particular reference to problems such as: the desire for software and platform independent texts; and attempts to solve the cataloguing problems involving SGML bibliographic records using such techniques as the Text Encoding Initiative

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4