Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07758914 = product of:
  0.1163837 = sum of:
    0.067894526 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.067894526 = score(doc=2646,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 2646, 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=2646)
    0.048489176 = product of:
      0.09697835 = sum of:
        0.09697835 = weight(_text_:searching in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09697835 = score(doc=2646,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.47300297 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

Content

1. Introduction In this paper we address two questions: 1. What is the position of subject indexing in the thinking of the library world after the publication of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (1998)? 2. Is this position in accordance with the requirements of the users searching for documents about a given subject? Research Shows that searching an a topic (i.e. subject access) is an important, even predominant type of end-user searching of library catalogues and even more so of other bibliographic databases. Between one third and two thirds of all OPAC searches are probably subject searches (Large & Beheshti, 199%). Taking into account different ways in which searching an a topic is implemented in library catalogues (subject headings, classification, keywords only) the percentage may be even higher. For example title word searching may be a substitute for subject searching if no better tools are available. In the light of this it is not surprising that the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) pays attention to subject searching, as well as the Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (FRANAR) (2003). Also the Statement of International Cataloguing Principles: Final draft of 19 December 2003, which is the result of the first First IFLA Meeting of Experts an an International Cataloguing Code mentiong subject access as a function of cataloguing (Statement, 2003). In this paper we discuss the ways these three documents deal with subjects.

0.06633587 = product of:
  0.0995038 = sum of:
    0.07201302 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07201302 = score(doc=637,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 637, 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=637)
    0.027490778 = product of:
      0.054981556 = sum of:
        0.054981556 = weight(_text_:searching in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054981556 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The study Functional Requirements for Bibliograpbic Records (FRBR) was commissioned by IFLA and published in 1998. It defines the core functions of a catalogue (and bibliographic records) as a gateway to information. For that purpose an abstract entity-relationship model of a catalogue is proposed. The FRBR model is revolutionary. The (computer) catalogue is not seen as a sequence of bibliographic records and a replica of the traditional card catalogue, but rather as a network of connected entities, enabling the user to perform seamlessly all the necessary functions. So far there has been some theoretical discussion of the model and some limited experiments, but there is a lack of research in how to implement this theoretical model in practice, in new-generation catalogues. In this paper some reactions to the model are analysed. The main focus is an consequences of the model for the OPAC interface design, particularly the searching functionality and display of results.

0.05227445 = product of:
  0.078411676 = sum of:
    0.050920896 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050920896 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 131, 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=131)
    0.027490778 = product of:
      0.054981556 = sum of:
        0.054981556 = weight(_text_:searching in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054981556 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In this paper, after an introduction about problems of multilingual information languages, the rules and recommendations of the Guidelines for the establishment and development of multilingual thesauri for non-equivalence and partial equivalence of terms in different languages are discussed. Artificial terms are not very useful in searching, because most users are not willing to use a thesaurus to find the right descriptor. On the other hand indexers need guidance on how to index and therefore need a thesaurus with all desirable and necessary relations. It is suggested that bibliographic online systems can take over some of the functions for the searcher from the thesaurus and that a few new relations could be helpful to an indexer

0.039910547 = product of:
  0.059865817 = sum of:
    0.033947263 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033947263 = score(doc=3963,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 3963, 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=3963)
    0.025918555 = product of:
      0.05183711 = sum of:
        0.05183711 = weight(_text_:searching in 3963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05183711 = score(doc=3963,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.2528307 = fieldWeight in 3963, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In this paper the possibilities for a multilingual thesaurus in which not all descriptors in a given language have equivalent descriptors in all other languages and in which the hierarchical structure can have variations in the different languages and a small model of such a thesaurus is given. lt is argued that the searching possibilities that more recent programs for bibliographic databases offer make such non-identical thesauri possible.

Content

"1. Introduction Multilingual and crosslingual access to information is receiving more and more attention. Maybe the most important reason for this development is the Internet. There are estimations that about half of its users are people with a mother tongue other than English and that this proportion is growing. Crosslingual access in this context means the possibility to get free text access to information using another (natural) language than the language of the information itself. This type of access is important for users with a good passive knowledge of a language but with only a small active vocabulary of the same language, e.g. a Englishman who can read Russian, but has difficulties in formulating adequate search request in that language. Crosslingual access can also be valuable for monolingual users who can automatically or manually have translations of foreign language documents. The search requests will be translated or converted into the language of the information. Multilingual access assumes that the instruments used for access, the controlled information languages, are available in more than one language. An classic example is the Englishman who uses his English edition of the Universal Decimal Classification to search the catalogue of a library in China, although the classification of the library is done using a Chinese edition. In this case the searching and the classifying results in a notation that is the same irrespective which language edition was used for indexing. Another possibility is the use of a multilingual thesaurus or subject headings list, such the trilingual edition of the Library of Congress Subject Headings built at the Royal Library in Brussels (Belgium) or the Macrothesaurus of the OECD. Here, words are the access points - in one language into which each search request will be converted, or, alternatively, into all the languages involved. Multilingual information languages and guidelines an how to build them are the subject of this paper. Particular attention will be paid to multilingual thesauri."

0.03960514 = product of:
  0.11881542 = sum of:
    0.11881542 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 6150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11881542 = score(doc=6150,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.6021745 = fieldWeight in 6150, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6150)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 28(1999) no.4, S.91-93

0.03429906 = product of:
  0.102897175 = sum of:
    0.102897175 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102897175 = score(doc=2699,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 2699, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2699)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR, 1998), the study commissioned by IFLA, brings revolutionary changes in the way we see modern computer catalogues. The catalogue is not seen as a sequence of bibliographic records and a copy of a card catalogue, but as an interconnected network of related information. Implications of the new model for the future development of catalogues are discussed. Special attention is given to access points and relationships between entities and the changes those will bring into both the formal and subject cataloguing, and authority files.

0.032005787 = product of:
  0.09601736 = sum of:
    0.09601736 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09601736 = score(doc=2644,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4866305 = fieldWeight in 2644, 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=2644)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Defines classification. Discusses bibliographic classifications; subject classifications; subjects monitored in classifications; the order of subjects in classifications and the use of classifications. Many library managers question whether controlled subject access is necessary when most searches are done by title words. Where classification is used, the choice of scheme is more often determined by sociological reasoning than by informations cience consideration

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 24(1995) no.2, S.35-37

0.028289389 = product of:
  0.08486816 = sum of:
    0.08486816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08486816 = score(doc=5857,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 5857, 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=5857)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The IFLA study Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) set a new frame for both cataloguing codes and subject analysis. The Paris Principles defined the functions of the catalogue followed by both cataloguing codes used in Slovenia: P. Kalan's Abecedni imenski katalog and E. Verona's Pravilnik i prirunik za izradbe abecednih kataloga. FRBR defines the functions for records themselves, irrespective of the type of the database consisting of these records. Compared to the requirements for the national bibliographic records as defined by FRBR, the records belonging to the Slovenian national bibliography show more descriptive elements and less notes on bibliographic history, which reflects in lack of uniform titles. As the uniform title itself enables the identification of related works and their expressions, this practice does not satisfy the FRBR requirements. Differences in the extent of records for different types of material derive from decentralised processing at the National and University Library. It is therefore necessary to establish uniform criteria for both the materials included into the Slovenian national bibliography, and the extent of data elements.

Source

Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): hype or cure-all. Ed. by P. le Boeuf,

0.021381717 = product of:
  0.06414515 = sum of:
    0.06414515 = product of:
      0.1282903 = sum of:
        0.1282903 = weight(_text_:searching in 6413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1282903 = score(doc=6413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.6257241 = fieldWeight in 6413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.019422324 = product of:
  0.05826697 = sum of:
    0.05826697 = product of:
      0.11653394 = sum of:
        0.11653394 = weight(_text_:22 in 6405) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11653394 = score(doc=6405,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 6405, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6405)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 22(2000), S.15-22

0.016022598 = product of:
  0.048067793 = sum of:
    0.048067793 = product of:
      0.09613559 = sum of:
        0.09613559 = weight(_text_:22 in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09613559 = score(doc=210,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 210, 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=210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Open. 22(1990) no.1, S.11-15

0.016022598 = product of:
  0.048067793 = sum of:
    0.048067793 = product of:
      0.09613559 = sum of:
        0.09613559 = weight(_text_:22 in 211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09613559 = score(doc=211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 211, 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=211)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Open. 22(1990) no.10, S.326-330

0.015272654 = product of:
  0.04581796 = sum of:
    0.04581796 = product of:
      0.09163592 = sum of:
        0.09163592 = weight(_text_:searching in 3154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09163592 = score(doc=3154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.44694576 = fieldWeight in 3154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Searching with words: re-use of subject indexing

0.012959277 = product of:
  0.03887783 = sum of:
    0.03887783 = product of:
      0.07775566 = sum of:
        0.07775566 = weight(_text_:searching in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07775566 = score(doc=2193,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.37924606 = fieldWeight in 2193, 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=2193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

From a logical point of view, an OPAC is an inventory with indexes. Inventories can be accumulated and the indexes merged. However, in most merged catalogues not all documents have the same subject indexing and a number of documents are indexed by more than one system. In practice, a merged catalogue also contains descriptions without subject indexing. To augment the situation four methods are used: searching with title keywords, mapping and switching, acceptance of descriptions indexed in a given way only, and »citation pearl growing«. The last method uses all available subject indicators by using subject indicators present in relevant descriptions found by already known indicators. This method can also be of help in mapping and switching.

0.010690859 = product of:
  0.032072574 = sum of:
    0.032072574 = product of:
      0.06414515 = sum of:
        0.06414515 = weight(_text_:searching in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06414515 = score(doc=399,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.31286204 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

There exist in the world many bibliographical databases, which are indexed with the UDC. Searching in the databases is difficult for everyone not very experienced in the use of this classification scheme. The notations can be very complex and often it would be desirable to be able to search on only a part of the notation. In this paper algorithms for the decomposition of complex UDC-notations and adding a description to the resulting simple notations are discussed. In the second part of the paper the resulting texts are discussed