Search (74 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Katalogfragen allgemein"
  1. Lubetzky, S.: Writings on the classical art of cataloging (2001) 0.03
    0.028477818 = product of:
      0.08543345 = sum of:
        0.08543345 = sum of:
          0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.014203937 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
          0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07122952 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)
  2. Budd, J.: Exploring categorization : undergraduate student searching and the evolution of catalogs (2007) 0.02
    0.023560425 = product of:
      0.070681274 = sum of:
        0.070681274 = sum of:
          0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.023194931 = score(doc=256,freq=12.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 256, product of:
                3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                  12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=256)
          0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.047486346 = score(doc=256,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Debate about the future of library catalogs and cataloging has been, and continues to be, featured in the literature of librarianship. Some research into the ways undergraduate students at one institution assign subjects to selected works provides insight into the cognitive elements of categorization. The design of catalogs can be informed by this research, as well as work currently being done on alternative means of organization, such as information systems ontologies.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  3. Miksa, S.D.: ¬The challenges of change : a review of cataloging and classification literature, 2003-2004 (2007) 0.02
    0.023560425 = product of:
      0.070681274 = sum of:
        0.070681274 = sum of:
          0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.023194931 = score(doc=266,freq=12.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 266, product of:
                3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                  12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=266)
          0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.047486346 = score(doc=266,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 266, 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=266)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This paper reviews the enormous changes in cataloging and classification reflected in the literature of 2003 and 2004, and discusses major themes and issues. Traditional cataloging and classification tools have been re-vamped and new resources have emerged. Most notable themes are: the continuing influence of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Control (FRBR); the struggle to understand the ever-broadening concept of an "information entity"; steady developments in metadata-encoding standards; and the globalization of information systems, including multilinguistic challenges.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. LeBlanc, J.; Kurth, M.: ¬An operational model for library metadata maintenance (2008) 0.02
    0.022587692 = product of:
      0.067763075 = sum of:
        0.067763075 = sum of:
          0.017396197 = weight(_text_:of in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017396197 = score(doc=101,freq=12.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
                3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                  12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
          0.05036688 = weight(_text_:22 in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.05036688 = score(doc=101,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Libraries pay considerable attention to the creation, preservation, and transformation of descriptive metadata in both MARC and non-MARC formats. Little evidence suggests that they devote as much time, energy, and financial resources to the ongoing maintenance of non-MARC metadata, especially with regard to updating and editing existing descriptive content, as they do to maintenance of such information in the MARC-based online public access catalog. In this paper, the authors introduce a model, derived loosely from J. A. Zachman's framework for information systems architecture, with which libraries can identify and inventory components of catalog or metadata maintenance and plan interdepartmental, even interinstitutional, workflows. The model draws on the notion that the expertise and skills that have long been the hallmark for the maintenance of libraries' catalog data can and should be parlayed towards metadata maintenance in a broader set of information delivery systems.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    19. 6.2010 19:22:28
  5. El-Sherbini, M.A.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2005-06 (2008) 0.02
    0.02129588 = product of:
      0.06388764 = sum of:
        0.06388764 = sum of:
          0.016401293 = weight(_text_:of in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.016401293 = score(doc=249,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
          0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.047486346 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This paper reviews library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2005-06. It covers pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of cataloging; Functional Requirement for Bibliographic Records (FRBR); metadata and its applications and relation to Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC); cataloging tools and standards; authority control; and recruitment, training, and the changing role of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  6. Bowman, J.H.: ¬The catalog as barrier to retrieval : Part 1: hyphens and ampersands in titles (2000) 0.02
    0.021157425 = product of:
      0.06347227 = sum of:
        0.06347227 = sum of:
          0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.021921717 = score(doc=5365,freq=14.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5365, product of:
                3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                  14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5365)
          0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 5365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.041550554 = score(doc=5365,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5365, 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=5365)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    An Internet survey of 38 different OPAC systems, at eighty different libraries, was undertaken to investigate the effect on retrieval of the presence of the hyphen or the ampersand in titles. Title and Keyword searches were performed. In Title search, 22 of the systems treat the hyphen as equivalent to a space, while in Keyword the number is 16. The other systems treat it in various different ways (even including the equivalent of NOT), which means that results of searching multiple catalogs are very inconsistent. The ampersand may be ignored, treated as a special character, or treated as "and," again with very inconsistent results. Various recommendations are made with a view to improving consistency of performance.
  7. Bates, M.J.: Speculations on browsing, directed searching, and linking in relation to the Bradford distribution (2002) 0.02
    0.018567387 = product of:
      0.055702157 = sum of:
        0.055702157 = sum of:
          0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.020087399 = score(doc=54,freq=16.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 54, product of:
                4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                  16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=54)
          0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 54) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03561476 = score(doc=54,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 54, 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=54)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Extensive literatures exist on information searching theory and techniques, as well as on the Bradford Distribution. This distribution, also known as "Bradford's Law of Scattering," tells us that information on a subject is dispersed in a characteristic and robust pattern that appears consistently across many different environments. This pattern may be expected to have important implications for information searching theory and techniques. Yet these two research literatures are rarely considered in relation to each other. It is the purpose of this article to distinguish three Bradford regions and speculate on the optimum searching techniques for each region. In the process, browsing, directed searching in databases, and the pursuit of various forms of links will all be considered. Implications of growth in size of a literature for optimal information organization and searching will also be addressed.
    Date
    22. 2.2007 18:56:23
    Source
    Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari
  8. Marcum, D.B.: ¬The future of cataloging (2006) 0.02
    0.01775607 = product of:
      0.053268205 = sum of:
        0.053268205 = sum of:
          0.01171765 = weight(_text_:of in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.01171765 = score(doc=114,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 114, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=114)
          0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.041550554 = score(doc=114,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 114, 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=114)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This paper explores cataloging in the Age of Google. It considers what the technologies now being adopted mean for cataloging in the future. The author begins by exploring how digital-era students do research-they find using Google easier than using libraries. Mass digitization projects now are bringing into question the role that library cataloging has traditionally performed. The author asks readers to consider if the detailed attention librarians have been paying to descriptive cataloging can still be justified, and if cost-effective means for access should be considered.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. Arsenault, C.; Ménard, E.: Searching titles with initial articles in library catalogs : a case study and search behavior analysis (2007) 0.02
    0.016606232 = product of:
      0.049818695 = sum of:
        0.049818695 = sum of:
          0.014203937 = weight(_text_:of in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.014203937 = score(doc=2264,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 2264, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2264)
          0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03561476 = score(doc=2264,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2264, 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=2264)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This study examines problems caused by initial articles in library catalogs. The problematic records observed are those whose titles begin with a word erroneously considered to be an article at the retrieval stage. Many retrieval algorithms edit queries by removing initial words corresponding to articles found in an exclusion list even whether the initial word is an article or not. Consequently, a certain number of documents remain more difficult to find. The study also examines user behavior during known-item retrieval using the title index in library catalogs, concentrating on the problems caused by the presence of an initial article or of a word homograph to an article. Measures of success and effectiveness are taken to determine if retrieval is affected in such cases.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  10. Byrum, J.D.: ¬The emerging global bibliographical network : the era of international standardization in the development of cataloging policy (2000) 0.02
    0.016131433 = product of:
      0.048394296 = sum of:
        0.048394296 = sum of:
          0.01871533 = weight(_text_:of in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.01871533 = score(doc=190,freq=20.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
                4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                  20.0 = termFreq=20.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
          0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.029678967 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Catalogers have become interdependent in their pursuit to provide bibliographic control and access. This interdependency has brought with it the need for greater agreement in applying common cataloging policies and rules. The expanded application of AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) is fostering greater uniformity in the provision of bibliographic description and access. The rules have been translated into numerous languages and used in European, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. Cataloging committees and individual libraries in Europe and South Africa have expressed strong interest in adopting, adapting, or aligning with AACR2. PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloguing) is one of the most successful cooperative cataloging efforts and has a considerable international component, which encourages the use of AACR, LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings), and MARC. AACR2 is successful on an international level because it is based in internationally developed standards, including ISBDs and the Paris Principles. ISBDs (International Standard Bibliographic Description) and the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records are examples of the contributions that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) has made to the internationalization of cataloging. IFLA sponsored the international conference that resulted in the Paris Principles as well as subsequent projects to craft international policy in relation to uniform headings for persons, corporate bodies, and titles.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  11. Frâncu, V.: ¬An interpretation of the FRBR model (2004) 0.02
    0.015805468 = product of:
      0.0474164 = sum of:
        0.0474164 = sum of:
          0.023673227 = weight(_text_:of in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.023673227 = score(doc=2647,freq=50.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
                7.071068 = tf(freq=50.0), with freq of:
                  50.0 = termFreq=50.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
          0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.023743173 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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.
    Content
    1. Introduction With the diversification of the material available in library collections such as: music, film, 3D objects, cartographic material and electronic resources like CD-ROMS and Web sites, the existing cataloguing principles and codes are no longer adequate to enable the user to find, identify, select and obtain a particular entity. The problem is not only that material fails to be appropriately represented in the catalogue records but also access to such material, or parts of it, is difficult if possible at all. Consequently, the need emerged to develop new rules and build up a new conceptual model able to cope with all the requirements demanded by the existing library material. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records developed by an IFLA Study Group from 1992 through 1997 present a generalised view of the bibliographic universe and are intended to be independent of any cataloguing code or implementation (Tillett, 2002). Outstanding scholars like Antonio Panizzi, Charles A. Cutter and Seymour Lubetzky formulated the basic cataloguing principles of which some can be retrieved, as Denton (2003) argues as updated versions, between the basic lines of the FRBR model: - the relation work-author groups all the works of an author - all the editions, translations, adaptations of a work are clearly separated (as expressions and manifestations) - all the expressions and manifestations of a work are collocated with their related works in bibliographic families - any document (manifestation and item) can be found if the author, title or subject of that document is known - the author is authorised by the authority control - the title is an intrinsic part of the work + authority control entity
    Date
    17. 6.2015 14:40:22
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  12. DeZelar-Tiedman, V.: Doing the LibraryThing(TM) in an academic library catalog (2008) 0.01
    0.013148739 = product of:
      0.039446216 = sum of:
        0.039446216 = sum of:
          0.015703043 = weight(_text_:of in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.015703043 = score(doc=2666,freq=22.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 2666, product of:
                4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                  22.0 = termFreq=22.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2666)
          0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 2666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.023743173 = score(doc=2666,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2666, 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=2666)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Many libraries and other cultural institutions are incorporating Web 2.0 features and enhanced metadata into their catalogs (Trant 2006). These value-added elements include those typically found in commercial and social networking sites, such as book jacket images, reviews, and usergenerated tags. One such site that libraries are exploring as a model is LibraryThing (www.librarything.com) LibraryThing is a social networking site that allows users to "catalog" their own book collections. Members can add tags and reviews to records for books, as well as engage in online discussions. In addition to its service for individuals, LibraryThing offers a feebased service to libraries, where institutions can add LibraryThing tags, recommendations, and other features to their online catalog records. This poster will present data analyzing the quality and quantity of the metadata that a large academic library would expect to gain if utilizing such a service, focusing on the overlap between titles found in the library's catalog and in LibraryThing's database, and on a comparison between the controlled subject headings in the former and the user-generated tags in the latter. During February through April 2008, a random sample of 383 titles from the University of Minnesota Libraries catalog was searched in LibraryThing. Eighty works, or 21 percent of the sample, had corresponding records available in LibraryThing. Golder and Huberman (2006) outline the advantages and disadvantages of using controlled vocabulary for subject access to information resources versus the growing trend of tags supplied by users or by content creators. Using the 80 matched records from the sample, comparisons were made between the user-supplied tags in LibraryThing (social tags) and the subject headings in the library catalog records (controlled vocabulary system). In the library records, terms from all 6XX MARC fields were used. To make a more meaningful comparison, controlled subject terms were broken down into facets according to their headings and subheadings, and each unique facet counted separately. A total of 227 subject terms were applied to the 80 catalog records, an average of 2.84 per record. In LibraryThing, 698 tags were applied to the same 80 titles, an average of 8.73 per title. The poster will further explore the relationships between the terms applied in each source, and identify where overlaps and complementary levels of access occur.
    Source
    Metadata for semantic and social applications : proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, Berlin, 22 - 26 September 2008, DC 2008: Berlin, Germany / ed. by Jane Greenberg and Wolfgang Klas
  13. Managing cataloging and the organization of information : philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century (2000) 0.01
    0.010307686 = product of:
      0.03092306 = sum of:
        0.03092306 = sum of:
          0.010147782 = weight(_text_:of in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010147782 = score(doc=238,freq=12.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.14812148 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
                3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                  12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
          0.020775277 = weight(_text_:22 in 238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.020775277 = score(doc=238,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 238, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=238)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in ZfBB 51(2004) H.1, S.54-55 (G. Pflug): "Unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der Informationstechnologie auf den Bibliotheksbereich nimmt die Katalogisierung eine Schlüsselstellung ein. Das vorliegende Werk gliedert sich in zwei Teile. Der erste Abschnitt ist mit »National Libraries« überschrieben, befasst sich jedoch nur mit der Library of Congress und der National Library of Canada. Ihm folgen Artikel über »Libraries around the world«. Dabei fälltjedoch auf, dass diese Studien zwar Bibliotheken in Großbritannien, Australien, Mittel- und Südamerika und selbst Afrika (Botswana) behandeln, nicht jedoch aus Kontinentaleuropa, trotz entsprechender Aktivitäten etwa in den Niederlanden, in Frankreich oder den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Nur DOBIS/LIBIS wird erwähnt, aber nur, weil es für kurze Zeit die kanadische Entwicklung beeinflusst hat. Im zweiten Teil kommen Katalogisierungsfachleute aus vier Spezial- und neun akademischen Bibliotheken - ausschließlich aus Nordamerika und Großbritannien - zu Wort. So enthält das Werk in 22 Beispielen Berichte über individuelle und regionale Lösungen. Dabei steht die Frage im Vordergrund, zu welchen Änderungen in der Katalogisierungs- und Sacherschließungspraxis die neuen elektronischen Techniken geführt haben. So streben z.B. die englischen Hochschulbibliotheken ein koordiniertes System an. Mit dem Übergang der British Library zu MARC 21 wird das Katalogsystem in Großbritannien nachhaltig beeinflusst - um nur zwei nahe liegende Beispiele zu nennen. Insgesamt werden drei Aspekte behandelt, die Automatisierungstechnik; die dabei einzusetzende Kooperation und das Outsourcing - nicht nur durch Übernahme von Daten anderer Bibliotheken oder durch Verbundsysteme, vor allem der Library of Congress, sondern auch durch Buchhandelsfirmen wie Blackwell North America Authority Control Service. In der Frage der Sacherschließung befassen sich die Beiträge mit den im amerikanischen Bereich üblichen Klassifikationssystemen, vor allem der Colon Classification, Dewey in seinen beiden Formen oder der Library of Congress Classification. Für die deutsche Diskussion sind diese Aspekte vor allem wegen des Übergangs der Deutschen Bibliothek in ihrer Nationalbibliografie zur DDC von großem Interesse (vgl. Magda Heiner-Freiling: Die DDC in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. In Dialog mit Bibliotheken. 15. 2003, Nr. 3, S. 8-13). Doch stellen auch die unterschiedlichen Überlegungen zur alphabetischen Katalogisierung, verbunden mit den da zugehörigen Datenbanken, einen interessanten Beitrag zur augenblicklichen Diskussion in Deutschland dar, da auch hier seit einigen Jahren die Katalogisierung nach RAK und ihre Ablösung eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst hat, wie unter anderem der zusammenfassende Beitrag von Elisabeth Niggemann in: Dialog mit Bibliotheken (15. 2003, Nr. 2, S. 4-8) zeigt. Auch die angloamerikanischen und die mit ihnen zum Beispiel in Mexiko, Südamerika oder Australien verbundenen Bibliotheken - das zeigt das Buch deutlich - diskutieren die Frage der alphabetischen Katalogisierung kontrovers. So werden z.B. neben den dominanten AACR-Regeln mit ihrer Weiterentwicklung mehr als zehn andere Katalogisierungssysteme und rund 20 Online-Datenbanken behandelt. Damit liefert das Buch für die Diskussion in Deutschland und die anstehenden Entscheidungen in seiner Grundtendenz wie in den unterschiedlichen-auch widersprüchlichen-Aspekten dereinzelnen Beiträge wertvolle Anregungen."
  14. Aliprand, J.M.: ¬The Unicode Standard : its scope, design prin. ciples, and prospects for international cataloging (2000) 0.01
    0.009892989 = product of:
      0.029678967 = sum of:
        0.029678967 = product of:
          0.059357934 = sum of:
            0.059357934 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.059357934 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  15. Schneider, R.: OPACs, Benutzer und das Web (2009) 0.01
    0.007914391 = product of:
      0.023743173 = sum of:
        0.023743173 = product of:
          0.047486346 = sum of:
            0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 2905) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047486346 = score(doc=2905,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2905, 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=2905)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2009 18:50:43
  16. Erdei, K.: Kein Umzug für Zettel : Die digitalisierten Kataloge im Neubau der UB Kiel (2001) 0.01
    0.0069250925 = product of:
      0.020775277 = sum of:
        0.020775277 = product of:
          0.041550554 = sum of:
            0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 5777) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041550554 = score(doc=5777,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5777, 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=5777)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    28. 4.2001 16:49:22
  17. Neubauer, W.: Von Bibliothekskatalogen zu Wissensportalen (2006) 0.01
    0.0059357933 = product of:
      0.01780738 = sum of:
        0.01780738 = product of:
          0.03561476 = sum of:
            0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 1757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03561476 = score(doc=1757,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1757, 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=1757)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 3.2008 12:40:17
  18. Umstätter, W.; Wagner-Döbler, R.; Löffler, K.: Einführung in die Katalogkunde : Vom Zettelkatalog zur Suchmaschine (2005) 0.01
    0.0059328787 = product of:
      0.017798636 = sum of:
        0.017798636 = sum of:
          0.0029591534 = weight(_text_:of in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0029591534 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.043193102 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
          0.014839483 = weight(_text_:22 in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.014839483 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Diese Einführung in die moderne Katalogkunde ist nicht nur für angehende Bibliothekare und Angehörige informationsbezogener Berufe gedacht, sie gilt auch allen interessierten Laien, die sich für eine professionelle Nutzung von Katalogen, insbesondere solchen in Form von Online-Datenbanken, im Bibliotheksbereich interessieren. Die Bibliothek ist eine Einrichtung zur Orientierung in einer Publikationsflut; aber nicht nur in Form einer «Positiv-Auswahl»: Sie stellt auch Information bereit, die man nach kurzer Prüfung verwirft oder die im Laufe des wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts falsifiziert wurde. Sie ist so auch Staumauer zur Eindämmung der Informationsüberflutung des Einzelnen, unabhängig vom aktuellen Nachfrage- oder Marktgeschehen. Insofern war sie auch immer eine Abwehr gegen Schund - und sei es nur durch dessen erbarmungsloser Dokumentation, und Bestandteil eines Controlling gegen schlechte und überflüssige Wissenschaft. Es ist daher auch die zentrale Aufgabe einer Katalogisierung, dazu beizutragen. Noch deutlicher gesagt, ist es weniger die Aufgabe der Bibliothekskataloge, uns zu zeigen, was wir alles lesen können, das sind allein etwa 100 Mio. verschiedene Buchtitel, es ist vielmehr ihre Aufgabe uns zu zeigen, was wir alles nicht lesen müssen, weil es bessere Quellen gibt. Diese Zeitersparnis ist insbesondere im Wettbewerb um das neu zu entdeckende Wissen in der Wissenschaft das höchste Gut, das wir haben, und Wissenschaft würde ohne diese Hilfe unbezahlbar. Es sei an eine mittlerweile rund 50 Jahre alte Maxime des großen indischen Bibliothekars und Bibliothekswissenschaftlers S.R. RANGANATHAN erinnert, die er (etwas irreführend) als ein «Gesetz der Bibliothekswissenschaft» bezeichnete: «Save the time of the reader. » Es ist aber auch für den Leser von Belletristik, für die Auswahl von Videofilmen oder Kinderbüchern nicht weniger wichtig, was man liest. So zitiert A. v. Harnack keinen geringeren als Leibniz mit den Worten «man weis, was bisweilen ein baar Bücher für Schaden gethan!'»
    Date
    22. 1.2006 19:45:49
  19. Voss, J.: LibraryThing : Web 2.0 für Literaturfreunde und Bibliotheken (2007) 0.01
    0.0059328787 = product of:
      0.017798636 = sum of:
        0.017798636 = sum of:
          0.0029591534 = weight(_text_:of in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0029591534 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.043193102 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
                0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
          0.014839483 = weight(_text_:22 in 1847) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.014839483 = score(doc=1847,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.043811057 = queryNorm
              0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1847, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1847)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Content
    Beispiel für die Anwendung von LibraryThing for Libraries im Katalog des Waterford Institute of Technology (): Zu einer ISBN werden auf Basis der in LibraryThing gesammelten Daten andere Auflagen und Übersetzungen, ähnliche Bücher und Tags eingeblendet. Soziale Software lebt vom Mitmachen Vieles spricht dafür, dass LibraryThing auf dem besten Weg ist, sich zu einem der wichtigsten Web 2.0-Dienste für die Zusammenarbeit mit Bibliotheken zu entwickeln. Wie schon bei Wikipedia gibt es allerdings noch viel zu oft Berührungsängste und die Vorstellung, dass sich diese Dienste erst durch Hilfe von Außen in der eigenen Einrichtung einführen ließen. Soziale Software lebt jedoch von der Zusammenarbeit und dem freien Austausch von Gedanken und Informationen. Deshalb hilft nur eins: Ausprobieren und Mitmachen. Ebenso wie Wikipedia schwer zu beurteilen ist, ohne selbst mit anderen Wikipedianern einen Artikel erstellt und diskutiert zu haben, erschließt sich LibraryThing erst vollständig durch eine eigene dort angelegte Büchersammlung. Zum Kennenlernen reicht der kostenlose Zugang und mit 15 $ Jahresgebühr können auch Bibliotheken problemlos bis zu 5.000 Medieneinheiten pro Sammlung einstellen. Wenn Sie erstmal mehr mit Library-Thing vertraut sind, werden Ihnen sicherlich weitere Einsatzmöglichkeiten für Ihre Einrichtung und deren Nutzer einfallen. LibraryThing entwickelt sich beständig weiter und dürfte noch für einige Überraschungen gut sein.
    Date
    22. 9.2007 10:36:23
  20. Behrens-Neumann, R.: Aus der 55. Sitzung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Verbundsysteme am 5. und 6. November 2008 in Frankfurt am Main (2009) 0.00
    0.0049464945 = product of:
      0.014839483 = sum of:
        0.014839483 = product of:
          0.029678967 = sum of:
            0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 2778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.029678967 = score(doc=2778,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.043811057 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2778, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2778)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2009 19:35:56

Languages

  • e 57
  • d 11
  • a 2
  • f 1
  • slv 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 60
  • el 13
  • m 4
  • r 4
  • b 3
  • s 2
  • More… Less…