Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.043804124 = product of:
  0.08760825 = sum of:
    0.08760825 = sum of:
      0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038116705 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 5760, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5760)
      0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049491543 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5760, 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=5760)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Normalization rules are essential for interoperability between bibliographic systems. In the process of working with Name Authority Cooperative Program (NACO) authority files to match records with Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and developing the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject heading schema, the authors found inconsistencies in independently created NACO normalization implementations. Investigating these, the authors found ambiguities in the NACO standard that need resolution, and came to conclusions on how the procedure could be simplified with little impact on matching headings. To encourage others to test their software for compliance with the current rules, the authors have established a Web site that has test files and interactive services showing their current implementation.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.043804124 = product of:
  0.08760825 = sum of:
    0.08760825 = sum of:
      0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038116705 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049491543 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)

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

0.021210661 = product of:
  0.042421322 = sum of:
    0.042421322 = product of:
      0.084842645 = sum of:
        0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084842645 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 131, 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=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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".

0.021210661 = product of:
  0.042421322 = sum of:
    0.042421322 = product of:
      0.084842645 = sum of:
        0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 1266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084842645 = score(doc=1266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1266, 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=1266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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".

0.021210661 = product of:
  0.042421322 = sum of:
    0.042421322 = product of:
      0.084842645 = sum of:
        0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 1290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084842645 = score(doc=1290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1290, 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=1290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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".

0.015219918 = product of:
  0.030439837 = sum of:
    0.030439837 = product of:
      0.060879674 = sum of:
        0.060879674 = weight(_text_:systems in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060879674 = score(doc=2288,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 5669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=5669,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 5669, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Today's electronic catalogue makes retrieval of specific records very simple and quick in most (not all) cases, but searches aimed at the reliable retrieval of all material answering a well-defined need (author, work, theme, form, etc.) are still long and tiring, and sometimes impossible, in crowded bibliographic databases. In spite of its great relevance, authority control has been and still is the "poor relative" of cataloguing, the often neglected or overlooked "other half" if we compare it to the creation of bibliographic records. The FRBR study and the new authority control standards (GARR and UNIMARC Authorities) are important steps towards future perspectives. Even today, cataloguing codes do not make clear the difference between the access points for bibliographic records and the relationships (work-to-work, author-to-work, etc.) that are independent from spoecific publications. With the development of richer authority records and relationships, the bibliographic record might be relieved of information related to entities different from publications and of all the functions more suitably worked out upstream or downstream in access systems or by links to the images and/or the texts of the publications themselves. A "light" bibliographic record would no longer be the paramount component of library information systems; it would keep its central role rather as nimble, swift turntable between access and content organization systems and systems for management and display of digital resources themselves.

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 156, 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=156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 167, 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=167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.011789299 = product of:
  0.023578597 = sum of:
    0.023578597 = product of:
      0.047157194 = sum of:
        0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047157194 = score(doc=2293,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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).

0.011551105 = product of:
  0.02310221 = sum of:
    0.02310221 = product of:
      0.04620442 = sum of:
        0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 5682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04620442 = score(doc=5682,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 5682, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings schema (LCSH) is the most commonly used and widely accepted subject vocabulary for general application. It is the de facto universal controlled vocabulary and has been a model for developing subject heading systems by many countries. However, LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control. Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid growth of the Web, are forcing changes in bibliographic control systems to make them easier to use, understand, and apply, and subject headings are no exception. The purpose of adapting the LCSH with a simplified syntax to create FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) headings is to retain the very rich vocabulary of LCSH while making the schema easier to understand, control, apply, and use. The schema maintains compatibility with LCSH--any valid Library of Congress subject heading can be converted to FAST headings.

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=436,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 436, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=436)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper traces the efforts made by IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions over the past three decades to promote the concept of Universal bibliographic Control in relation to authorities and authority control. It covers the work done by various groups within IFLA to develop standards for personal and corporate name headings, for authority and reference entries, and for UNIMARC/Authorities. The paper concludes with a summary of possible models for the future development of a systems infrastructure for international authority control.

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=1901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents a conceptual framework for library name authority control, including methods for disambiguating agents that share the same name and for collocating works of agents who use multiple names. It then discusses the identifier solutions tried or proposed in the library community for name authority control, analyzes the various identity management systems emerging outside of the library community, and envisions future trends in name authority control.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=3083,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Authority control is a quite recent term in the long history of cataloguing, although the underlying principle is among the very early principles of bibliographic control. Bibliographic control is a Field in transformation by the rapid expansion of the WWW, which has brought new problems to infonnation discovery and retrieval, creating new challenges and requirements in information management. In a comprehensive approach, authority control is presented as one of the most promising library activities in this respect. The evolution of work methods and standards for the sharing of authority files is reviewed, showing the imbalance in developments and practical achievements between name and subject authority, in an international perspective. The need to improve the network availability and usability of authority information assets in more effective and holistic ways is underlyned; and a new philosophy and scope is proposed for library authority work, based an the primacy of the linking function of authority data, and by expanding the finding, relating and informing functions of authority records. Some of these aspects are being addressed in several projects dealing with knowledge organization systems, notably to cope with multilingual needs and to enable semantic interoperability among different systems. Library practice itself should evolve in the same direction, thereby providing practical experience to inform new or improved principles and standards for authority work, while contributing to enhance local information services and to promote their involvement in the WWW environment.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=2506,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

This paper looks at approaches to name authority control in repository contexts and describes the work of the Names project, which has been funded to investigate issues surrounding the identification of individuals and institutions within repositories of research outputs in the United Kingdom. The problem of uniquely identifying authors has been with us ever since books have been catalogued. National libraries have been creating name authority files for authors of books for many years, starting with card catalogues and now maintaining electronic files in MARC format. However, authority files for the creators of journal articles do not tend to exist in library systems. The increasing use of subject-based and institutional repositories to hold working papers, reports, research data, and pre-refereed and post-referred versions of articles has led to a corresponding rise in the number of authors identified in such systems. Without having a means of uniquely and unambiguously identifying the creators of materials in repositories, it becomes difficult to be sure whether all the materials related to a particular author will be correctly associated with that individual. Names of authors may be entered in more than one way, or more than one author may have exactly the same name. This article looks at recent attempts to address this problem in the repository environment and goes on to explain the approach that is planned to be taken in the Names project.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=82,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 82, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines the current state of authority control development in Spanish university repositories. As a decade has now gone by since the initiation of the first projects for institutional repositories in Spain, it would seem a suitable time to draw attention to authority control, an element of the first rank in evaluating the consistency and integrity of systems for recovering bibliographic information. The work is focused on examining the implementation of authorities in twenty-six Spanish university repositories, taking into account the information provided by the standardization experts working in them. The study considers the responses of the coordinators for these digital collections using a set of analytic criteria set out in the study. The handling of authorities in the group of university repositories studied may be described as uneven. Greater interest may be observed in controlling author entries, with laxer solutions for authority control of subjects. It suggests the need to establish effective policies for the management of authorities by means of cooperative efforts permitting the building up of corpora of entries for authorities that would aid the processes of cataloguing, metadata creation, and information retrieval in systems based on syntactic and semantic interoperability in which manual intervention should be minimal.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The costs of authority control are high and the information provided in authority files is often duplicated in separate bibliographic files. Librarians need to examine the compatibility of traditional methods of authority control with the advanced capabilities of current computer systems. This study investigates the actual use of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) by catalogers in an RLIN member library. Results show that some aspects of authority control could be expedited by changes in cataloging practice and search software.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 2976) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=2976,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2976, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2976)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Neither the standards nor the software underlying institutional repositories anticipated performing name authority control on widely disparate metadata from highly unreliable sources. Without it, though, both machines and humans are stymied in their efforts to access and aggregate information by author. Many organizations are awakening to the problems and possibilities of name authority control, but without better coordination, their efforts will only confuse matters further. Local heuristics-based name-disambiguation software may help those repository managers who can implement it. For the time being, however, most repository managers can only control their own name lists as best they can after deposit while they advocate for better systems and services.