Search (97 results, page 1 of 5)

0.06403904 = product of:
  0.1921171 = sum of:
    0.1228424 = weight(_text_:readable in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1228424 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2262076 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.5430516 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.049321324 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049321324 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
    0.019953365 = product of:
      0.03990673 = sum of:
        0.03990673 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03990673 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

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

0.049398668 = product of:
  0.148196 = sum of:
    0.036990993 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036990993 = score(doc=1802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 1802, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1802)
    0.024403658 = weight(_text_:data in 1802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024403658 = score(doc=1802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1802, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1802)
    0.08680135 = weight(_text_:germany in 1802) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08680135 = score(doc=1802,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.39533097 = fieldWeight in 1802, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1802)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

Abstract

The German subject headings authority file - SWD - provides a terminologically controlled vocabulary, covering all fields of knowledge. The subject headings are determined by the German Rules for the Subject Catalogue. The authority file is produced and updated daily by participating libraries from around Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Over the last twenty years, it grew to an online-accessible database with about 550.000 headings. They are linked to other thesauri, also to French and English equivalents and with notations of the Dewey Decimal Classification. Thus, it allows multilingual access and searching in dispersed, heterogeneously indexed catalogues. The vocabulary is not only used for cataloguing library materials, but also web-resources and objects in archives and museums.

Series

IFLA series on bibliographic control; vol. 42

0.033626445 = product of:
  0.100879334 = sum of:
    0.04315616 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04315616 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.040263984 = weight(_text_:data in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040263984 = score(doc=180,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.017459193 = product of:
      0.034918386 = sum of:
        0.034918386 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034918386 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)

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

0.02460945 = product of:
  0.110742524 = sum of:
    0.0614212 = weight(_text_:readable in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0614212 = score(doc=4360,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2262076 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2715258 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.1439276 = idf(docFreq=257, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
    0.049321324 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049321324 = score(doc=4360,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 4360, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4360)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Before speaking about authority control in a multilingual environment, it is necessary to describe briefly the context in which this control is carried out. The electronic catalogue of the Russian State Library (RSL) contains more than 3 million records. Cataloguing with the use of the Aleph software and ??RC 21 has been carried out for this database since 2003. Other bibliographic records included in the electronic catalogue are received as a result of converting (1) bibliographic records from card catalogues, and (2) the bibliographic records created by RSL and other organizations with the use of other software and other formats. Up to 2003 the electronic catalogue included only records in Russian and in European languages. In 2003 we started cataloguing books and serials in the languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation and former union republics of the USSR. This year we are preparing for the description of documents in oriental languages. This "motley world" demands ordering and normalization of access points. Until 2003, two authority files were maintained in the RSL: the foreign and international organizations file and a file of "authors of special categories." Authority records were created in a format based on USMARC. In 2003 the authority control group was reorganized and its function widened. Now we are supposed to carry out the authority control of headings (controlled access points) in new bibliographic records by formation of authority records for these categories: - Names of persons, creators or objects of the work translated to Russian from other languages when in the document there is an original form of the name - Names of persons in which the forms of the names on the document differ from the form established for the system of catalogues at RSL - Such names of persons, as "authors of special categories" - Names of corporate bodies, Russian, foreign or international (creators or objects of the work), occurring in the system for the first time - Names of the corporate bodies, Russian, foreign or international reflected in authority records (machine-readable and traditional) if the form of the name on the document differs from the form established for the system of catalogues at RSL - The uniform titles of the Bible and its parts, anonymous classical works

0.022730911 = product of:
  0.102289096 = sum of:
    0.06975088 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06975088 = score(doc=2915,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
    0.032538213 = weight(_text_:data in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032538213 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Analyzes user requests resulting in zero hits for author searches in online catalogs. Discusses the need for bibliographic records relating to a name to brought together under one form of the name and the need for cross references from variant forms of the name. Presents data which prove that linked bibliographic/authority files and the availability of see references online in the OPAC reduce the number of times that author searches produce zero hits

0.021186067 = product of:
  0.0953373 = sum of:
    0.049321324 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049321324 = score(doc=4228,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 4228, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4228)
    0.04601598 = weight(_text_:data in 4228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04601598 = score(doc=4228,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.3952563 = fieldWeight in 4228, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4228)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The IFLA FRANAR Working Group is charged with extending the concepts of the IFLA Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records to authority data. The paper reports on the current state of the Working Group's activities.

0.01853781 = product of:
  0.08342014 = sum of:
    0.04315616 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04315616 = score(doc=326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
    0.040263984 = weight(_text_:data in 326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040263984 = score(doc=326,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.34584928 = fieldWeight in 326, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=326)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Authority control is discussed from two viewpoints: The need for bibliographic records relating to a name to be brought together under one form of the name; and the need for cross references to direct a user to a heading from variant forms of the name. Data from two research projects that support the need for choosing one form of name are summarized. The author's study of user requests that resulted in no "hits" in an online catalog is described. Data are given to show that for only 6.4% of these requests would our current methods of cross referencing in authority records have been helpful, and that two system programs would have given much greater assistance.

0.018191008 = product of:
  0.08185954 = sum of:
    0.049321324 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049321324 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
    0.032538213 = weight(_text_:data in 3030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032538213 = score(doc=3030,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 3030, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3030)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

A report on the completion of the work of the IFLA Working Group on Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records which was charged by the IFLA Division of Bibliographic Control to extend the FRBR model to authority data.

0.018191008 = product of:
  0.08185954 = sum of:
    0.049321324 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049321324 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
    0.032538213 = weight(_text_:data in 2095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032538213 = score(doc=2095,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 2095, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2095)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Series

IFLA series on bibliographic control; vol. 34

0.017442493 = product of:
  0.07849122 = sum of:
    0.061032027 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061032027 = score(doc=5760,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 5760, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5760)
    0.017459193 = product of:
      0.034918386 = sum of:
        0.034918386 = weight(_text_:22 in 5760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034918386 = score(doc=5760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.017366868 = product of:
  0.078150906 = sum of:
    0.055142917 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055142917 = score(doc=2303,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.3847152 = fieldWeight in 2303, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2303)
    0.02300799 = weight(_text_:data in 2303) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02300799 = score(doc=2303,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 2303, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2303)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Authority control is a standard practice in the library community that provides consistent, unique, and unambiguous reference to entities such as persons, places, concepts, etc. The ideal way of referring to authority records through unique identifiers is in line with the current linked data principle. When presenting a bibliographic record, the linked authority records are expanded with the authoritative information. This way, any update in the authority records will not affect the indexing of the bibliographic records. The structural information in the authority files can also be leveraged to expand the user's query to retrieve bibliographic records associated with all the variations, narrower terms or related terms. However, in many digital libraries, especially largescale aggregations such as WorldCat and Europeana, name strings are often used instead of authority record identifiers. This is also partly due to the lack of global authority records that are valid across countries and cultural heritage domains. But even when there are global authority systems, they are not applied at scale. For example, in WorldCat, only 15% of the records have DDC and 3% have UDC codes; less than 40% of the records have one or more topical terms catalogued in the 650 MARC field, many of which are too general (such as "sports" or "literature") to be useful for retrieving bibliographic records. Therefore, when a user query is based on a Dewey code, the results usually have high precision but the recall is much lower than it should be; and, a search on a general topical term returns millions of hits without being even complete. All these practices make it difficult to leverage the key benefits of authority files. This is also true for authority files that have been transformed into linked data and enriched with mapping information. There are practical reasons for using name strings instead of identifiers. One is the indexing and query response. The future infrastructure design should take the performance into account while embracing the benefit of linking instead of copying, without introducing extra complexity to users. Notwithstanding all the restrictions, we argue that largescale aggregations also bring new opportunities for better exploiting the benefits of authority records. It is possible to use machine learning techniques to automatically link bibliographic records to authority records based on the manual input of cataloguers. Text mining and visualization techniques can offer a contextual view of authority records, which in return can be used to retrieve missing or mis-catalogued records. In this talk, we will describe such opportunities in more detail.

0.017048184 = product of:
  0.076716825 = sum of:
    0.052313168 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052313168 = score(doc=5662,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 5662, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5662)
    0.024403658 = weight(_text_:data in 5662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024403658 = score(doc=5662,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 5662, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5662)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Defines authority control and vocabulary control and their place and utility in modern cataloguing. Discusses authority records and authority files and the use and purposes of each. Describes the creation of authority records and the sources from which authority data is collected. Discusses "metadata" schemes and their manifold and manifest inadequacies; points out the relationship of the Dublin Core to the MARC family of standards and the fact that both are framework standards-the first simplistic and naïve, the second complex and nuanced. Defines precision and recall as desiderata in indexing and retrieval schemes and relates them to authority control in catalogues. Discusses the problems involved in cataloguing electronic documents and resources and proposes an international program under the Universal Bibliographic Control (UBC) umbrella, using an international code of descriptive cataloguing, and based on an international name authority file. Calls for urgent action on these proposals.

0.017048184 = product of:
  0.076716825 = sum of:
    0.052313168 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052313168 = score(doc=5667,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 5667, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5667)
    0.024403658 = weight(_text_:data in 5667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024403658 = score(doc=5667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 5667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5667)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Forty years ago the ICCP in Paris laid the foundations of international co-operation in descriptive cataloging without explicitly speaking of authority control. Some of the factors in the evolution of authority control are the development of catalogs (from card catalog to local automation, to today's OPAC on the Web) and services provided by libraries (from individual service to local users to system networks, to the World Wide Web), as well as international agreements on cataloging (from Paris Principles to the UBC programme, to the report on Mandatory data elements for internationally shared resource authority records). This evolution progressed from the principle of uniform heading to the definition of authority entries and records, and from the responsibility of national bibliographic agencies for the form of the names of their own authors to be shared internationally to the concept of authorized equivalent heading. Some issues of the present state are the persisting differences among national rules and the aim of respecting both local culture and language and international readability.

0.016955415 = product of:
  0.07629937 = sum of:
    0.03082583 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03082583 = score(doc=2288,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
    0.04547354 = weight(_text_:data in 2288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04547354 = score(doc=2288,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.39059696 = fieldWeight in 2288, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2288)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

0.01647167 = product of:
  0.07412251 = sum of:
    0.06165166 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06165166 = score(doc=190,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 190, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=190)
    0.012470853 = product of:
      0.024941705 = sum of:
        0.024941705 = weight(_text_:22 in 190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024941705 = score(doc=190,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.014206818 = product of:
  0.06393068 = sum of:
    0.0435943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0435943 = score(doc=3083,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
    0.020336384 = weight(_text_:data in 3083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020336384 = score(doc=3083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3083)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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.

0.013470079 = product of:
  0.060615353 = sum of:
    0.04315616 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04315616 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 156, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=156)
    0.017459193 = product of:
      0.034918386 = sum of:
        0.034918386 = weight(_text_:22 in 156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034918386 = score(doc=156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Subject access in the OPAC, as discussed in this article, is predicated on two different kinds of searching: subject (authority, alphabetic, or controlled vocabulary searching) or keyword (uncontrolled, free text, natural language vocabulary). The literature has focused on demonstrating that both approaches are needed, but very few authors address the need to integrate keyword into authority searching. The article discusses this difference and compares, with a query on the term garbage, search results in two online catalogs, one that performs keyword searches through the authority file and one where only bibliographic records are included in keyword searches.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.013089778 = product of:
  0.058904 = sum of:
    0.02273677 = weight(_text_:data in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02273677 = score(doc=1166,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.19529848 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.03616723 = weight(_text_:germany in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03616723 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21956629 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.16472124 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.011369381 = product of:
  0.051162213 = sum of:
    0.03082583 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03082583 = score(doc=1760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
    0.020336384 = weight(_text_:data in 1760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020336384 = score(doc=1760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1760)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR)-based model and functional requirements for authority data (FRAD)-based model; both of which incorporate an event concept that transforms FRBR and FRAD with minimal modification. Design/methodology/approach - Relationships between the entities defined in FRBR/FRAD are transformed into event entities and relationships with other kinds of entities. The cardinality of those relationships is also examined. In addition, a comparison of the proposed FRBR-based model with the object-oriented FRBR (FRBROO) is conducted. Findings - In the proposed event-aware FRBR model, an event and its output resource are dependent on each other and necessary information about an event can be expressed with information about its output resource, and vice versa. Therefore, the usefulness and expressiveness of the proposed model is limited. In the FRBROO model, dependency between an event and its output resource is not observed, except in a few cases, since a different resource and event modeling was adopted there. The event-aware FRAD model proposed is useful - but also the scope of its usefulness limited since dependency between an event and its input/output resource is not observed on some event entities. Originality/value - The proposed models are meaningful in terms of understanding the basic structure and features of a model that incorporates an event concept. The usefulness and limitation of event modeling have been clarified through such model building. The proposed models provide a stable basis for examining FRBR/FRAD further.

0.010593033 = product of:
  0.04766865 = sum of:
    0.024660662 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024660662 = score(doc=1240,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 1240, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1240)
    0.02300799 = weight(_text_:data in 1240) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02300799 = score(doc=1240,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11642061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.19762816 = fieldWeight in 1240, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1240)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The Alexandria Digital Library (ADL) Project has developed a content standard for gazetteer objects and a hierarchical type scheme for geographic features. Both of these developments are based on ADL experience with an earlier gazetteer component for the Library, based on two gazetteers maintained by the U.S. federal government. We define the minimum components of a gazetteer entry as (1) a geographic name, (2) a geographic location represented by coordinates, and (3) a type designation. With these attributes, a gazetteer can function as a tool for indirect spatial location identification through names and types. The ADL Gazetteer Content Standard supports contribution and sharing of gazetteer entries with rich descriptions beyond the minimum requirements. This paper describes the content standard, the feature type thesaurus, and the implementation and research issues. A gazetteer is list of geographic names, together with their geographic locations and other descriptive information. A geographic name is a proper name for a geographic place and feature, such as Santa Barbara County, Mount Washington, St. Francis Hospital, and Southern California. There are many types of printed gazetteers. For example, the New York Times Atlas has a gazetteer section that can be used to look up a geographic name and find the page(s) and grid reference(s) where the corresponding feature is shown. Some gazetteers provide information about places and features; for example, a history of the locale, population data, physical data such as elevation, or the pronunciation of the name. Some lists of geographic names are available as hierarchical term sets (thesauri) designed for information retreival; these are used to describe bibliographic or museum materials. Examples include the authority files of the U.S. Library of Congress and the GeoRef Thesaurus produced by the American Geological Institute. The Getty Museum has recently made their Thesaurus of Geographic Names available online. This is a major project to develop a controlled vocabulary of current and historical names to describe (i.e., catalog) art and architecture literature. U.S. federal government mapping agencies maintain gazetteers containing the official names of places and/or the names that appear on map series. Examples include the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency's Geographic Names Processing System (GNPS). Both of these are maintained in cooperation with the U.S. Board of Geographic Names (BGN). Many other examples could be cited -- for local areas, for other countries, and for special purposes. There is remarkable diversity in approaches to the description of geographic places and no standardization beyond authoritative sources for the geographic names themselves.