Search (53 results, page 1 of 3)

0.022607416 = product of:
  0.06782225 = sum of:
    0.05683182 = weight(_text_:great in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05683182 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 2647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2647)
    0.010990429 = product of:
      0.021980857 = sum of:
        0.021980857 = weight(_text_:22 in 2647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021980857 = score(doc=2647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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.

Date

17. 6.2015 14:40:22

0.017341528 = product of:
  0.10404916 = sum of:
    0.10404916 = weight(_text_:documentation in 2837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10404916 = score(doc=2837,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.5891825 = fieldWeight in 2837, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2837)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide a reconsideration of Michael Buckland's important question, "What is a document?", analysing the point and purpose of definitions of "document" and "documentation". Design/methodology/approach - Two philosophical notions of the point of definitions are contrasted: John Stuart Mill's concept of a "real" definition, purporting to specify the nature of the definiendum; and a concept of definition based upon a foundationalist philosophy of language. Both conceptions assume that a general, philosophical justification for using words as we do is always in order. This assumption is criticized by deploying Hilary Putnam's arguments against the orthodox Wittgensteinian interpretation of criteria governing the use of language. The example of the cabinets of curiosities of the sixteenth-century English and European virtuosi is developed to show how one might productively think about what documents might be, but without a definition of a document. Findings - Other than for specific, instrumentalist purposes (often appropriate for specific case studies), there is no general philosophical reason for asking, what is a document? There are good reasons for pursuing studies of documentation without the impediments of definitions of "document" or "documentation". Originality/value - The paper makes an original contribution to the new interest in documentation studies by providing conceptual resources for multiplying, rather than restricting, the areas of application of the concepts of documents and documentation.

Source

Journal of documentation. 65(2009) no.2, S.291-303

0.016991157 = product of:
  0.101946935 = sum of:
    0.101946935 = weight(_text_:documentation in 6205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.101946935 = score(doc=6205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.57727855 = fieldWeight in 6205, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6205)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 35(1998) no.4, S.241-246

0.011327437 = product of:
  0.06796462 = sum of:
    0.06796462 = weight(_text_:documentation in 1988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06796462 = score(doc=1988,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.38485238 = fieldWeight in 1988, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1988)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: Journal of documentation. 53(1997) no.2, S.200-203 (M. Line); Electronic library. 15(1997) no.2, S.147 (A. O'Brien); Program. 31(1997) no.2, S.199-201 (M.A. Burke); Journal of academic librarianship. 23(1997) no.1, S.54-55 (M. Johansen); Journal of librarianship and information science. 29(1997) no.2, S.110-111 (J.H. Bowman)

0.011327437 = product of:
  0.06796462 = sum of:
    0.06796462 = weight(_text_:documentation in 177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06796462 = score(doc=177,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.38485238 = fieldWeight in 177, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=177)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Les étudiants méconnaissent le fonctionnement de leur bibliothèque universitaire et sont victimes de l'abondance documentaire. De plus, les catalogues informatisés, au regard des autres vecteurs d'information électronique, apparaissent désormais comme archaïques. Au service commun de la documentation de l'Université Paris VIII, un outil expérimental complète l'Opac depuis octobre 2004 : le Visual... Catalog. Cette interface introduit l'hypertextualité et transpose graphiquement les données du catalogue.

0.009911507 = product of:
  0.059469044 = sum of:
    0.059469044 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059469044 = score(doc=4536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.33674583 = fieldWeight in 4536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4536)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Document theory examines the concept of a document and how it can serve with other concepts to understand communication, documentation, information, and knowledge. Knowledge organization itself is in practice based on the arrangement of documents representing concepts and knowledge. The word "document" commonly refers to a text or graphic record, but, in a semiotic perspective, non-graphic objects can also be regarded as signifying and, therefore, as documents. The steady increase in the variety and number of documents since prehistoric times enables the development of communities, the division of labor, and reduction of the constraints of space and time. Documents are related to data, facts, texts, works, information, knowledge, signs, and other documents. Documents have physical (material), cognitive, and social aspects.

0.009471971 = product of:
  0.05683182 = sum of:
    0.05683182 = weight(_text_:great in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05683182 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In the last decade a discussion has been going an in the Division of Bibliographic Control of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) about the principles of cataloguing. This discussion was initiated by the widespread replacement of the card and list catalogues by Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) since 1980. In this paper we discuss the role of subject cataloguing in three important documents that are the results of this discussion. Our conclusion is that the interest in subject cataloguing has grown remarkably, but is still not an the level it deserves given the fact that a great part of all searches in OPACs are subject oriented.

0.008495579 = product of:
  0.050973468 = sum of:
    0.050973468 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050973468 = score(doc=4442,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.28863928 = fieldWeight in 4442, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4442)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.6, S.692-708

0.008495579 = product of:
  0.050973468 = sum of:
    0.050973468 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4463) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050973468 = score(doc=4463,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.28863928 = fieldWeight in 4463, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4463)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.4, S.363-382

0.0073269526 = product of:
  0.043961715 = sum of:
    0.043961715 = product of:
      0.08792343 = sum of:
        0.08792343 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08792343 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

3.10.2000 20:48:22

0.0073269526 = product of:
  0.043961715 = sum of:
    0.043961715 = product of:
      0.08792343 = sum of:
        0.08792343 = weight(_text_:22 in 6462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08792343 = score(doc=6462,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6462, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Library journal. 123(1998) no.19, S.22-24

0.0071039777 = product of:
  0.042623866 = sum of:
    0.042623866 = weight(_text_:great in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042623866 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.18663573 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The future of bibliographic control will be collaborative, decentralized, international in scope, and Web-based. Its realization will occur in cooperation with the private sector, and with the active collaboration of library users. Data will be gathered from multiple sources; change will happen quickly; and bibliographic control will be dynamic, not static. The underlying technology that makes this future possible and necessary-the World Wide Web-is now almost two decades old. Libraries must continue the transition to this future without delay in order to retain their relevance as information providers. The Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control encourages the library community to take a thoughtful and coordinated approach to effecting significant changes in bibliographic control. Such an approach will call for leadership that is neither unitary nor centralized. Nor will the responsibility to provide such leadership fall solely to the Library of Congress (LC). That said, the Working Group recognizes that LC plays a unique role in the library community of the United States, and the directions that LC takes have great impact on all libraries. We also recognize that there are many other institutions and organizations that have the expertise and the capacity to play significant roles in the bibliographic future. Wherever possible, those institutions must step forward and take responsibility for assisting with navigating the transition and for playing appropriate ongoing roles after that transition is complete. To achieve the goals set out in this document, we must look beyond individual libraries to a system wide deployment of resources. We must realize efficiencies in order to be able to reallocate resources from certain lower-value components of the bibliographic control ecosystem into other higher-value components of that same ecosystem. The recommendations in this report are directed at a number of parties, indicated either by their common initialism (e.g., "LC" for Library of Congress, "PCC" for Program for Cooperative Cataloging) or by their general category (e.g., "Publishers," "National Libraries"). When the recommendation is addressed to "All," it is intended for the library community as a whole and its close collaborators.

0.007079649 = product of:
  0.04247789 = sum of:
    0.04247789 = weight(_text_:documentation in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04247789 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24053274 = fieldWeight in 2843, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2843)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 65(2009) no.3, S.500-514

0.007079649 = product of:
  0.04247789 = sum of:
    0.04247789 = weight(_text_:documentation in 2627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04247789 = score(doc=2627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24053274 = fieldWeight in 2627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2627)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This report constitutes Phase I of a two-part study; a Phase II report will discuss subject cataloging. Phase I is concerned with the materials of a library as individual records (or documents) and as representations of certain works by certain authors--that is, with descriptive, or bibliographic, cataloging. Discussed in the report are (1) the history, role, function, and oblectives .of the author-and-title catalog; (2) problems and principles of descriptive catalogng, including the use and function of "main entry, the principle of authorship, and the process and problems of cataloging print and nonprint materials; (3) organization of the catalog; and (4) potentialities of automation. The considerations inherent in bibliographic cataloging, such as the distinction between the "book" and the "work," are said to be so elemental that they are essential not only to the effective control of library's materials but also to that of the information contained in the materials. Because of the special concern with information, the author includes a discussion of the "Bibliographic Dimensions of Information Control," 'prepared in collaboration with Robert M. Hayes, which also appears in "American Documentation," VOl.201 July 1969, p. 247-252.

0.007079649 = product of:
  0.04247789 = sum of:
    0.04247789 = weight(_text_:documentation in 5571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04247789 = score(doc=5571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24053274 = fieldWeight in 5571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5571)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

One of the presumed advantages of next-generation library catalogue interfaces is that the user experience is improved-that it is both richer and more intuitive. Often the interfaces come with little or no user-facing documentation or imbedded "help" for patrons based on an assumption of ease of use and familiarity of the experience, having followed best practices in use on the Web. While there has been much gray literature (published on library Web sites, etc.) interrogating these implicit claims and contrasting the new interfaces to traditional Web-based catalogues, this article details a consistent and formal comparison of whether users can actually accomplish common library tasks, unassisted, using these interfaces. The author has undertaken a task-based usability test of vendor-provided next-generation catalogue interfaces and Web-scale discovery tools (Encore Synergy, Summon, WorldCat Local, Primo Central, EBSCO Discovery Service). Testing was done with undergraduates across all academic disciplines. The resulting qualitative data, noting any demonstrated trouble using the software as well as feedback or suggested improvements that the users may have about the software, will assist academic libraries in making or validating purchase and subscription decisions for these interfaces as well as help vendors make data-driven decisions about interface and experience enhancements.

0.0054952144 = product of:
  0.032971285 = sum of:
    0.032971285 = product of:
      0.06594257 = sum of:
        0.06594257 = weight(_text_:22 in 5352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06594257 = score(doc=5352,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 5352, 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=5352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

8.10.2000 14:22:27

0.0054952144 = product of:
  0.032971285 = sum of:
    0.032971285 = product of:
      0.06594257 = sum of:
        0.06594257 = weight(_text_:22 in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06594257 = score(doc=290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 290, 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=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

6. 1.2007 14:49:22

0.0054952144 = product of:
  0.032971285 = sum of:
    0.032971285 = product of:
      0.06594257 = sum of:
        0.06594257 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06594257 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.0045793457 = product of:
  0.027476072 = sum of:
    0.027476072 = product of:
      0.054952145 = sum of:
        0.054952145 = weight(_text_:22 in 2268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054952145 = score(doc=2268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2268, 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=2268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 22(1998) H.2, S.235-243

0.0045793457 = product of:
  0.027476072 = sum of:
    0.027476072 = product of:
      0.054952145 = sum of:
        0.054952145 = weight(_text_:22 in 4608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054952145 = score(doc=4608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22