Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024897177 = product of:
  0.06224294 = sum of:
    0.04414041 = weight(_text_:study in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04414041 = score(doc=1087,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.3048192 = fieldWeight in 1087, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1087)
    0.018102532 = product of:
      0.036205065 = sum of:
        0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 1087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036205065 = score(doc=1087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1087, 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=1087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Core Standard for Rare Books, known as the DCRB Core standard, was approved by the Program for Cooperative Cataloging for use beginning in January 1999. Comparable to the core standards for other types of materials, the DCRB Core standard provides requirements for an intermediate level of bibliographic description for the cataloging of rare books. While the Core Standard for Books seems to have found a place in general cataloging practice, the DCRB Core standard appears to have met with resistance among rare book cataloging practitioners. This study investigates the extent to which such resistance exists by examining all of the DCRB Core records in the OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) Online Union Catalog (WorldCat) and the Research Libraries Croup Union Catalog (RLIN) databases that were created during the standard's first five years. The study analyzes the content of the records for adherence to the standard and investigates the ways in which the flexibility of the standard and cataloger's judgment augmented many records with more than the mandatory elements of description and access.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.02301344 = product of:
  0.0575336 = sum of:
    0.03641398 = weight(_text_:study in 3600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03641398 = score(doc=3600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.251463 = fieldWeight in 3600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3600)
    0.021119623 = product of:
      0.042239245 = sum of:
        0.042239245 = weight(_text_:22 in 3600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042239245 = score(doc=3600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3600, 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=3600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Evaluative and comparative studies of catalog data have tended to focus on methods that are labor intensive, demand expertise, and can examine only a limited number of records. This study explores an alternative approach to gathering and analyzing catalog data, focusing on the currency and consistency of controlled headings. The resulting data provide insight into libraries' use of changed headings and their success in maintaining currency and consistency, and the systems needed to support the current pace of heading changes.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.019945055 = product of:
  0.049862638 = sum of:
    0.020807989 = weight(_text_:study in 1479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020807989 = score(doc=1479,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.14369315 = fieldWeight in 1479, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1479)
    0.029054647 = product of:
      0.058109295 = sum of:
        0.058109295 = weight(_text_:teaching in 1479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058109295 = score(doc=1479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24199244 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.433489 = idf(docFreq=524, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.24012855 = fieldWeight in 1479, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.433489 = idf(docFreq=524, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This being the Birth Centenary.Year of Dr. S. R. Ranganathan, it was deemed as a befitting tribute to the author of Colon Classifiction to bring together all that has been published thus far on it and complile it in the form of a bibliographies are an important source of information on a particular field of study and research. A research worker has to carry out the literature survey on the area of interest which sometimes consumes many precious man hours in order to collect some relevent citations. Thus bibliographies are a useful source in saving the precious time and energy of the reseach workers, and lead them to the primary sources for carryying out the research further to the destination.

Content

Inhalt: General Classification, Colon Classification, Edition7, Philosophy, Conference, Literature Survey, Features, History. Countries and Areas , Theoru, Design of Classification, Classification Problems , Research in Classification, Trends in Classification, Depth Classification, Automatic Classification, Uses of Classification, Practical Classification, Application of Classification, Standards, Glossary.Teminology, classification and Reference Service, Classificationand Documentation, Classification and Communication, Classification and Retrieval, Comparison to Other Schemes, Canons, Isolates, Common Isolates , Space Isolates, Time Isolates, Special Isolates, Postulates, Fundamental Categories, Facet Formula, Optionl Facets, Rounds and Levels, Basic Subjects, Notation and Symbols, Array and Chanin, Devices, Mnemonics, Phase Relation, Systems and Specials, Book Number, Cooperative Calssification, Teaching of Classification, Classification of Specific Subjects, Book Science, Bibliography, Library and Information Science, Classification, Cataloguing, Mathematics, Cybernetics, Engineering, Computer, Chemistry, Crystallography, Technology. Food Technology, Corrosion, Parasitism, Geology , Agriculture, Zoology, Animal Husbandry, Medicine, Useful Arts, Military Science, Creative Arts, Aiterature, Sanskrit, Marathi, Tamil, Calssics, Linguistics, Philosophy, Ssocial Science, Geography, Maps, History , Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Law,

0.019725805 = product of:
  0.049314514 = sum of:
    0.031211983 = weight(_text_:study in 121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031211983 = score(doc=121,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.21553972 = fieldWeight in 121, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=121)
    0.018102532 = product of:
      0.036205065 = sum of:
        0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036205065 = score(doc=121,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 121, 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=121)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper presents results from a fall 2003 survey of heads of cataloging at Association of Research Libraries United States academic libraries. The survey focused on the current number of professional catalogers and their responsibilities as well as future projections for demand for catalogers and thoughts about their roles. The study found that the numbers of professional catalogers are remaining constant or decreasing, and approximately one-third are projected to retire in the next decade. In addition, the role of the professional cataloger is perceived as continuing to evolve toward more cataloging-related activities and management and less direct cataloging. Most respondents predicted the professional cataloger has a role in the future and felt prepared for that future. Some respondents suggested that metadata cataloging would be a growing role in that future. This paper concludes with additional questions about the future of professional catalogers and cataloging.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.019725805 = product of:
  0.049314514 = sum of:
    0.031211983 = weight(_text_:study in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031211983 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.21553972 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
    0.018102532 = product of:
      0.036205065 = sum of:
        0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036205065 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 125, 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=125)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Reclassification was a popular trend during the 1960s and 1970s for many academic libraries wanting to change from Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) to Library of Congress (LC) Classification. In 2002, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale's Morris Library changed from DDC to LC. If one academic library recently converted, might other DDC academic libraries consider switching, too? Conversely, for those academic libraries that remain with DDC, what are the reasons they continue with it? A survey of thirty-four DDC academic libraries in the United States and Canada determined what factors influence these libraries to continue using DDC, and if reclassification is something they have considered or are considering. The survey also investigated whether patrons of these DDC libraries prefer LC and if their preference influences the library's decision to reclassify. Results from the survey indicate that the issue of reclassification is being considered by some of these libraries even though, overall, they are satisfied with DDC. The study was unable to determine if patrons' preference for a classification scheme influenced a library's decision to reclassify.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.019725805 = product of:
  0.049314514 = sum of:
    0.031211983 = weight(_text_:study in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031211983 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1448085 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044537213 = queryNorm
        0.21553972 = fieldWeight in 3602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2514048 = idf(docFreq=4653, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3602)
    0.018102532 = product of:
      0.036205065 = sum of:
        0.036205065 = weight(_text_:22 in 3602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036205065 = score(doc=3602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15596174 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044537213 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3602, 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=3602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study is an examination of the overlap between author-assigned keywords and cataloger-assigned Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for a set of electronic theses and dissertations in Ohio State University's online catalog. The project is intended to contribute to the literature on the issue of keywords versus controlled vocabularies in the use of online catalogs and databases. Findings support previous studies' conclusions that both keywords and controlled vocabularies complement one another. Further, even in the presence of bibliographic record enhancements, such as abstracts or summaries, keywords and subject headings provided a significant number of unique terms that could affect the success of keyword searches. Implications for the maintenance of controlled vocabularies such as LCSH also are discussed in light of the patterns of matches and nonmatches found between the keywords and their corresponding subject headings.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22