Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04768092 = product of:
  0.07152138 = sum of:
    0.050920896 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050920896 = score(doc=2205,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2205, 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=2205)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2205) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=2205,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2205, 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=2205)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Form subdivisions have always been an important part of the Library of Congress Subject Headings. However, when the MARC format was developed, no separate subfield code to identify form subdivisions was defined. Form and topical subdivisions were both included within a general subdivision category. In 1995, the USMARC Advisory Group approved a proposal defining subfield v for form subdivisions, and in 1999 the Library of Congress (LC) began identifying form subdivisions with the new code. However, there are millions of older bibliographic records lacking the explicit form subdivision coding. Identifying form subdivisions retrospectively is not a simple task. An algorithmic method was developed to identify form subdivisions coded as general subdivisions. The algorithm was used to identify 2,563 unique form subdivisions or combinations of form subdivisions in OCLC's WorldCat. The algorithm proved to be highly accurate with an error rate estimated to be less than 0.1%. The observed usage of the form subdivisions was highly skewed with the 100 most used form subdivisions or combinations of subdivisions accounting for 90% of the assignments.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.028289389 = product of:
  0.08486816 = sum of:
    0.08486816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08486816 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Series

IFLA series on bibliographic control; vol. 42

0.024436247 = product of:
  0.073308736 = sum of:
    0.073308736 = product of:
      0.14661747 = sum of:
        0.14661747 = weight(_text_:searching in 1146) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14661747 = score(doc=1146,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.7151132 = fieldWeight in 1146, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1146)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In addition to using title keywords and subject headings for searching in the online catalog, the searcher may also use class numbers as access points. Library of Congress class or call numbers are particular effective in certain kinds of specific-item subject searching and serve as supplements to keywords and descriptors, improving precision and recall. Class number searching in the database can produce unique results because these numbers collect citations in ways that differ from those of keywords and descriptors

0.01980257 = product of:
  0.05940771 = sum of:
    0.05940771 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05940771 = score(doc=492,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 492, 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=492)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An analysis of a sample of 9.442 headings assigned by the LoC to bibliographic records disclosed 2 types of invalid headings: those that were erroneous and those that were obsolete. Each type revealed recurring patterns. Errors and obsolete elements occuring in assigned heading involve MARC coding, terminology in main headings and subdivisions, application of subdivisions, and in mechanical elements such as punctuation and capitalization. Different headings (e.g. personal name, corporate name, topical, etc.) display different patterns as well as predominance of errors and obsoleteness. Although the overall error rate is low, an awareness and understanding of patterns of errors and obsolescnce in subject heading strings should contribute to improvement in subject heading assignment and subject authority control

0.017279036 = product of:
  0.05183711 = sum of:
    0.05183711 = product of:
      0.10367422 = sum of:
        0.10367422 = weight(_text_:searching in 477) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10367422 = score(doc=477,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.5056614 = fieldWeight in 477, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=477)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Advantages and disadvantages of on-line classification access are presented with special attention to Library of Congress Classification (LCC) features for subject browsing, known item-searching, enhancement of keyword and controlled vocabulary searching, and other unique retrieval capabilities.

0.016973633 = product of:
  0.050920896 = sum of:
    0.050920896 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050920896 = score(doc=2181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2181, 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=2181)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid proliferation of digital resources, are forcing changes in bibliographic control to make it easier to use, understand, and apply subject data. Subject headings are no exception. The enormous volume and rapid growth of digital libraries and repositories and the emergence of numerous metadata schemes have spurred a reexamination of the way subject data are to be provided for such resources efficiently and effectively. To address this need, OCLC in cooperation with the Library of Congress, has taken a new approach, called FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology). FAST headings are based on the existing vocabulary in Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), but are applied with a simpler syntax than required by Library of Congress application policies. Adapting the LCSH vocabulary in a simplified faceted syntax retains the rich vocabulary of LCSH while making it easier to understand, control, apply, and use.

0.016022598 = product of:
  0.048067793 = sum of:
    0.048067793 = product of:
      0.09613559 = sum of:
        0.09613559 = weight(_text_:22 in 3247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09613559 = score(doc=3247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Object

DDC-22

0.014144694 = product of:
  0.04243408 = sum of:
    0.04243408 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04243408 = score(doc=3816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 3816, 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=3816)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

0.013733655 = product of:
  0.041200966 = sum of:
    0.041200966 = product of:
      0.08240193 = sum of:
        0.08240193 = weight(_text_:22 in 3985) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08240193 = score(doc=3985,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3985, 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=3985)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

25.11.2005 18:37:22

0.012959277 = product of:
  0.03887783 = sum of:
    0.03887783 = product of:
      0.07775566 = sum of:
        0.07775566 = weight(_text_:searching in 2503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07775566 = score(doc=2503,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.37924606 = fieldWeight in 2503, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2503)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

The aim of this study is to develop a software tool, VisuaLCSH, for effective searching, browsing, and maintenance of LCSH. This tool enables visualizing subject headings and hierarchical structures implied and embedded in LCSH. A conceptual framework for converting the hierarchical structure of headings in LCSH to an explicit tree structure is proposed, described, and implemented. The highlights of VisuaLCSH are summarized below: 1) revealing multiple aspects of a heading; 2) normalizing the hierarchical relationships in LCSH; 3) showing multi-level hierarchies in LCSH sub-trees; 4) improving the navigational function of LCSH in retrieval; and 5) enabling the implementation of generic search, i.e., the 'exploding' feature, in searching LCSH.

0.012218123 = product of:
  0.036654368 = sum of:
    0.036654368 = product of:
      0.073308736 = sum of:
        0.073308736 = weight(_text_:searching in 3010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073308736 = score(doc=3010,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.3575566 = fieldWeight in 3010, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3010)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The chapter deals with methods of subject cataloguing, subject analysis and representation of library materials and outlines the practice of subject searching in library catalogs after the introduction of online catalogs. The vocabulary control methods in the Library of Congress Classification and LCSH are described and strategies for the use of theses systems in online retrieval situations are outlined

0.011315755 = product of:
  0.033947263 = sum of:
    0.033947263 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033947263 = score(doc=3616,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 3616, 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=3616)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the linking of a folksonomy (user vocabulary) and LCSH (controlled vocabulary) on the basis of word matching, for the potential use of LCSH in bringing order to folksonomies. Design/methodology/approach - A selected sample of a folksonomy from a popular collaborative tagging system, Delicious, was word-matched with LCSH. LCSH was transformed into a tree structure called an LCSH tree for the matching. A close examination was conducted on the characteristics of folksonomies, the overlap of folksonomies with LCSH, and the distribution of folksonomies over the LCSH tree. Findings - The experimental results showed that the total proportion of tags being matched with LC subject headings constituted approximately two-thirds of all tags involved, with an additional 10 percent of the remaining tags having potential matches. A number of barriers for the linking as well as two areas in need of improving the matching are identified and described. Three important tag distribution patterns over the LCSH tree were identified and supported: skewedness, multifacet, and Zipfian-pattern. Research limitations/implications - The results of the study can be adopted for the development of innovative methods of mapping between folksonomy and LCSH, which directly contributes to effective access and retrieval of tagged web resources and to the integration of multiple information repositories based on the two vocabularies. Practical implications - The linking of controlled vocabularies can be applicable to enhance information retrieval capability within collaborative tagging systems as well as across various tagging system information depositories and bibliographic databases. Originality/value - This is among frontier works that examines the potential of linking a folksonomy, extracted from a collaborative tagging system, to an authority-maintained subject heading system. It provides exploratory data to support further advanced mapping methods for linking the two vocabularies.

0.0068668276 = product of:
  0.020600483 = sum of:
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5920, 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=5920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27. 5.2001 16:22:21

0.0068668276 = product of:
  0.020600483 = sum of:
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=3842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3842, 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=3842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

27. 8.2011 14:22:42

0.0061090617 = product of:
  0.018327184 = sum of:
    0.018327184 = product of:
      0.036654368 = sum of:
        0.036654368 = weight(_text_:searching in 1177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036654368 = score(doc=1177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.1787783 = fieldWeight in 1177, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is the second part of an analysis of the methods that have been used to achieve or improve interoperability among metadata schemas and their applications in order to facilitate the conversion and exchange of metadata and to enable cross-domain metadata harvesting and federated searches. From a methodological point of view, implementing interoperability may be considered at different levels of operation: schema level (discussed in Part I of the article), record level (discussed in Part II of the article), and repository level (also discussed in Part II). The results of efforts to improve interoperability may be observed from different perspectives as well, including element-based and value-based approaches. As discussed in Part I of this study, the results of efforts to improve interoperability can be observed at different levels: 1. Schema level - Efforts are focused on the elements of the schemas, being independent of any applications. The results usually appear as derived element sets or encoded schemas, crosswalks, application profiles, and element registries. 2. Record level - Efforts are intended to integrate the metadata records through the mapping of the elements according to the semantic meanings of these elements. Common results include converted records and new records resulting from combining values of existing records. 3. Repository level - With harvested or integrated records from varying sources, efforts at this level focus on mapping value strings associated with particular elements (e.g., terms associated with subject or format elements). The results enable cross-collection searching. In the following sections, we will continue to analyze interoperability efforts and methodologies, focusing on the record level and the repository level. It should be noted that the models to be discussed in this article are not always mutually exclusive. Sometimes, within a particular project, more than one method may be used.