Search (1151 results, page 1 of 58)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Noruzi, A.: FRBR and Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships (2012) 0.13 
    0.12918285 = product of:
  0.19377425 = sum of:
    0.16630694 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16630694 = score(doc=4564,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.84286875 = fieldWeight in 4564, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4564)
    0.02746731 = product of:
      0.05493462 = sum of:
        0.05493462 = weight(_text_:22 in 4564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05493462 = score(doc=4564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4564, 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=4564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic relationships are one of the most active research areas in knowledge organization, especially in cataloguing. This study attempts to examine and map the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) bibliographic relationships with Tillett's taxonomy of bibliographic relationships, and to a ssess the congruence between them. The FRBR conceptual model provides a taxonomy of bibliographic relationships in chapter 5, illustrating them in 11 tables. This study shows that there is considerable congruence between these two taxonomies.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:13:52
  2. Stalberg, E.; Cronin, C.: Assessing the cost and value of bibliographic control (2011) 0.10 
    0.10458239 = product of:
  0.15687358 = sum of:
    0.1328397 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1328397 = score(doc=2592,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.6732516 = fieldWeight in 2592, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2592)
    0.024033897 = product of:
      0.048067793 = sum of:
        0.048067793 = weight(_text_:22 in 2592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048067793 = score(doc=2592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2592, 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=2592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In June 2009, the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services Heads of Technical Services in Large Research Libraries Interest Group established the Task Force on Cost/Value Assessment of Bibliographic Control to address recommendation 5.1.1.1 of On the Record: Report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, which focused on developing measures for costs, benefits, and value of bibliographic control. This paper outlines results of that task force's efforts to develop and articulate metrics for evaluating the cost and value of cataloging activities specifically, and offers some next steps that the community could take to further the profession's collective understanding of the costs and values associated with bibliographic control.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  3. O'Neill, E.; Zumer, M.; Mixter, J.: FRBR aggregates : their types and frequency in library collections (2015) 0.09 
    0.08964205 = product of:
  0.13446307 = sum of:
    0.11386259 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11386259 = score(doc=2610,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.5770728 = fieldWeight in 2610, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2610)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=2610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2610, 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=2610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Aggregates have been a frequent topic of discussion between library science researchers. This study seeks to better understand aggregates through the analysis of a sample of bibliographic records and review of the cataloging treatment of aggregates. The study focuses on determining how common aggregates are in library collections, what types of aggregates exist, how aggregates are described in bibliographic records, and the criteria for identifying aggregates from the information in bibliographic records. A sample of bibliographic records representing textual resources was taken from OCLC's WorldCat database. More than 20 percent of the sampled records represented aggregates and more works were embodied in aggregates than were embodied in single work manifestations. A variety of issues, including cataloging practices and the varying definitions of aggregates, made it difficult to accurately identify and quantify the presence of aggregates using only the information from bibliographic records.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. Coyle, K.: FRBR, before and after : a look at our bibliographic models (2016) 0.09 
    0.086291395 = product of:
  0.12943709 = sum of:
    0.11227002 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11227002 = score(doc=2786,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.56900144 = fieldWeight in 2786, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2786)
    0.017167069 = product of:
      0.034334138 = sum of:
        0.034334138 = weight(_text_:22 in 2786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034334138 = score(doc=2786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2786, 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=2786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This book looks at the ways that we define the things of the bibliographic world, and in particular how our bibliographic models reflect our technology and the assumed goals of libraries. There is, of course, a history behind this, as well as a present and a future. The first part of the book begins by looking at the concept of the 'work' in library cataloging theory, and how that concept has evolved since the mid-nineteenth century to date. Next it talks about models and technology, two areas that need to be understood before taking a long look at where we are today. It then examines the new bibliographic model called Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the technical and social goals that the FRBR Study Group was tasked to address. The FRBR entities are analyzed in some detail. Finally, FRBR as an entity-relation model is compared to a small set of Semantic Web vocabularies that can be seen as variants of the multi-entity bibliographic model that FRBR introduced.
    Content
    Part I. Work, model, technologyThe work -- The model -- The technology -- Part II. FRBR and other solutions -- Introduction -- FRBR : standard for international sharing -- The entity-relation model -- What is modeled in FRBR -- Does FRBR meet FRBR's objectives? -- Some issues that arise -- Bibliographic description and the Semantic Web.
    Date
    12. 2.2016 16:22:58
  5. O'Neill, E.T.; Bennett, R.; Kammerer, K.: Using authorities to improve subject searches (2012) 0.09 
    0.08622172 = product of:
  0.12933257 = sum of:
    0.10184179 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10184179 = score(doc=310,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
    0.027490778 = product of:
      0.054981556 = sum of:
        0.054981556 = weight(_text_:searching in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054981556 = score(doc=310,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.26816747 = fieldWeight in 310, 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=310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Authority files have played an important role in improving the quality of indexing and subject cataloging. Although authorities can significantly improve search by increasing the number of access points, they are rarely an integral part of the information retrieval process, particularly end-users searches. A retrieval prototype, searchFAST, was developed to test the feasibility of using an authority file as an index to bibliographic records. searchFAST uses FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) as an index to OCLC's WorldCat.org bibliographic database. The searchFAST methodology complements, rather than replaces, existing WorldCat.org access. The bibliographic file is searched indirectly; first the authority file is searched to identify appropriate subject headings, then the headings are used to retrieve the matching bibliographic records. The prototype demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of using an authority file as an index. Searching the authority file leverages authority control work by increasing the number of access points while supporting a simple interface designed for end-users.
  6. Parka, A.L.; Panchyshyn, R.S.: ¬The path to an RDA hybridized catalog : lessons from the Kent State University Libraries' RDA enrichment project (2016) 0.08 
    0.084620714 = product of:
  0.12693107 = sum of:
    0.102897175 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.102897175 = score(doc=2632,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
    0.024033897 = product of:
      0.048067793 = sum of:
        0.048067793 = weight(_text_:22 in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048067793 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article describes in detail the library implementation of a Resource Description and Access (RDA) Enrichment project. The library "hybridized," or enriched legacy data from Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules bibliographic records by the addition of specific RDA elements. The project also cleaned up various other elements in the bibliographic data that were not directly RDA-related. There were over 28 million changes and edits made to these records, changes that would never have been made otherwise because the library lacked the resources to do them independently. The enrichment project made the bibliographic data consistent, and helped prepared the data for its eventual transition to a linked data environment.
    Date
    21. 1.2016 19:08:22
  7. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.08 
    0.08172412 = product of:
  0.122586176 = sum of:
    0.04243408 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04243408 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
    0.080152094 = sum of:
      0.04581796 = weight(_text_:searching in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04581796 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05068286 = queryNorm
          0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.034334138 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034334138 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05068286 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  8. Lee, S.; Jacob, E.K.: ¬An integrated approach to metadata interoperability : construction of a conceptual structure between MARC and FRBR (2011) 0.08 
    0.08162819 = product of:
  0.122442275 = sum of:
    0.10184179 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10184179 = score(doc=302,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.5161496 = fieldWeight in 302, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=302)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 302) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=302,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 302, 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=302)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) is currently the most broadly used bibliographic standard for encoding and exchanging bibliographic data. However, MARC may not fully support representation of the dynamic nature and semantics of digital resources because of its rigid and single-layered linear structure. The Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model, which is designed to overcome the problems of MARC, does not provide sufficient data elements and adopts a predetermined hierarchy. A flexible structure for bibliographic data with detailed data elements is needed. Integrating MARC format with the hierarchical structure of FRBR is one approach to meet this need. The purpose of this research is to propose an approach that can facilitate interoperability between MARC and FRBR by providing a conceptual structure that can function as a mediator between MARC data elements and FRBR attributes.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. O'Neill, E.T.; Bennett, R.; Kammerer, K.: Using authorities to improve subject searches (2014) 0.08 
    0.07817757 = product of:
  0.11726636 = sum of:
    0.08486816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08486816 = score(doc=1970,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 1970, 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=1970)
    0.032398194 = product of:
      0.06479639 = sum of:
        0.06479639 = weight(_text_:searching in 1970) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06479639 = score(doc=1970,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.3160384 = fieldWeight in 1970, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1970)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Authority files have played an important role in improving the quality of indexing and subject cataloging. Although authorities can significantly improve searching by increasing the number of access points, they are rarely an integral part of the information retrieval process, particularly end-users' searches. A retrieval prototype, searchFAST, was developed to test the feasibility of using an authority file as an index to bibliographic records. searchFAST uses Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) as an index to OCLC's WorldCat.org bibliographic database. The searchFAST prototype complements, rather than replaces, existing WorldCat.org access. The bibliographic file is searched indirectly; first the authority file is searched to identify appropriate subject headings, then the headings are used to retrieve the matching bibliographic records. The prototype demonstrates the effectiveness and practicality of using an authority file as an index. Searching the authority file leverages authority control work by increasing the number of access points while supporting a simple interface designed for end-users.
  10. Chambers, S.; Myall, C.: Cataloging and classification : review of the literature 2007-8 (2010) 0.07 
    0.07203273 = product of:
  0.10804909 = sum of:
    0.08401519 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08401519 = score(doc=4309,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
    0.024033897 = product of:
      0.048067793 = sum of:
        0.048067793 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048067793 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  11. Henttonen, P.: Bibliographic subject headings as access points to archival sources (2014) 0.07 
    0.07203273 = product of:
  0.10804909 = sum of:
    0.08401519 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08401519 = score(doc=1460,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.4258017 = fieldWeight in 1460, 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=1460)
    0.024033897 = product of:
      0.048067793 = sum of:
        0.048067793 = weight(_text_:22 in 1460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048067793 = score(doc=1460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1460, 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=1460)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The paper examines whether subject headings in a bibliographic description could be used to direct users to relevant archival sources: a publication about a subject is likely to cite archival sources that are related to the subject. In the light of the data collected for the paper this approach might work in case of some keywords. However, there are also problems, like finding the optimal level the user should be directed to in the archival hierarchy, and the lack of information in archival persistent identifiers (PIDs).
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  12. Joint, N.: ¬The one-stop shop search engine : a transformational library technology? ANTAEUS (2010) 0.07 
    0.07185143 = product of:
  0.10777714 = sum of:
    0.08486816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08486816 = score(doc=4201,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 4201, 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=4201)
    0.02290898 = product of:
      0.04581796 = sum of:
        0.04581796 = weight(_text_:searching in 4201) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04581796 = score(doc=4201,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.22347288 = fieldWeight in 4201, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4201)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to form one of a series which will give an overview of so-called "transformational" areas of digital library technology. The aim will be to assess how much real transformation these applications are bringing about, in terms of creating genuine user benefit and also changing everyday library practice. Design/methodology/approach - An overview of the present state of development of the one-stop shop library search engine, with particular reference to its relationship with the underlying bibliographic databases to which it provides a simplified single interface. Findings - The paper finds that the success of federated searching has proved valuable but limited to date in creating a one-stop shop search engine to rival Google Scholar; but the persistent value of the bibliographic databases sitting underneath a federated search system means that a harvesting search engine could well answer the need for a true one-stop search engine for academic and scholarly information. Research limitations/implications - This paper is based on the hypothesis that Google's success in providing such an apparently high degree of access to electronic journal services is not what it seems, and that it does not render library discovery tools obsolete. It argues that Google has not diminished the pre-eminent role of library bibliographic databases in mediating access to e-journal text, although this hypothesis needs further research to validate or disprove it. Practical implications - The paper affirms the value of bibliographic databases to practitioner librarians and the potential of single interface discovery tools in library practice. Originality/value - The paper uses statistics from US LIS sources to shed light on UK discovery tool issues.
  13. Casson, E.; Fabbrizzi, A.; Slavic, A.: Subject search in Italian OPACs : an opportunity in waiting? (2011) 0.07 
    0.07055254 = product of:
  0.10582881 = sum of:
    0.06001085 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06001085 = score(doc=1801,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 1801, 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=1801)
    0.04581796 = product of:
      0.09163592 = sum of:
        0.09163592 = weight(_text_:searching in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09163592 = score(doc=1801,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.44694576 = fieldWeight in 1801, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Subject access to bibliographic data supported by knowledge organization systems, such as subject headings and classification, plays an important role in ensuring the quality of library catalogues. It is generally acknowledged that users have a strong affinity to subject browsing and searching and are inclined tofollow meaningful links between resources. Research studies, however, show that library OPACs are not designed to support or make good use of subject indexes and their underlying semantic structure. A project entitled OPAC semantici was initiated in 2003 by a number of Italian subject specialists and the Italian "Research Group on Subject Indexing" (GRIS) with a goal to analyse and evaluate subject access in Italian library catalogues through a survey of 150 OPACs. Applying the same methodology, a follow-up survey to assess whether any improvement had taken place was conducted five years later, in spring 2008. Analysis of these two surveys indicated that there was a slight improvement. The authors discuss the results of these two surveys, analyse the problems in subject searching in OPACs and explain the recommendations for subject searching enhancement put forward by GRIS. Using the example of Italian OPACs, the authors will attempt to outline some requirements for a subject searching interface and explain how this can be achieved through authority control.
    Series
    IFLA series on bibliographic control; vol. 42
  14. Smiraglia, R.P.: Classification interaction demonstrated empirically (2014) 0.06 
    0.061742336 = product of:
  0.0926135 = sum of:
    0.07201302 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07201302 = score(doc=1420,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    There is greater depth in knowledge organization systems beyond the surface of hierarchically-structured concepts. Deconstructed elements of a knowledge organization system share network-like relationships that might be used in interaction with the characteristics of documents to provide "classification interaction" as a means of identifying previously undiscovered relationships. A random sample of UDC call numbers from the online catalog of the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) is analyzed to discover interactions among conceptual classification, instantiation, and bibliographic demographic characteristics. The associations demonstrated represent ways in which predictable interactions occur among classified bibliographic entities and the components of the rich UDC classification.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  15. Blackman, C.; Moore, E.R.; Seikel, M.; Smith, M.: WorldCat and SkyRiver (2014) 0.06 
    0.061742336 = product of:
  0.0926135 = sum of:
    0.07201302 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07201302 = score(doc=2602,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2602, 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=2602)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=2602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2602, 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=2602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In 2009, a new company, SkyRiver, began offering bibliographic utility services to libraries in direct competition to OCLC's WorldCat. This study examines the differences between the two databases in terms of hit rates, total number of records found for each title in the sample, number of non-English language records, and the presence and completeness of several elements in the most-held bibliographic record for each title. While this study discovered that the two databases had virtually the same hit rates and record fullness for the sample used-with encoding levels as the sole exception-the study results do indicate meaningful differences in the number of duplicate records and non-English-language records available in each database for recently published scholarly monographs.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  16. Martin, K.E.; Mundle, K.: Positioning libraries for a new bibliographic universe (2014) 0.06 
    0.061742336 = product of:
  0.0926135 = sum of:
    0.07201302 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07201302 = score(doc=2608,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2608, 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=2608)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2608, 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=2608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper surveys the English-language literature on cataloging and classification published during 2011 and 2012, covering both theory and application. A major theme of the literature centered on Resource Description and Access (RDA), as the period covered in this review includes the conclusion of the RDA test, revisions to RDA, and the implementation decision. Explorations in the theory and practical applications of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), upon which RDA is organized, are also heavily represented. Library involvement with linked data through the creation of prototypes and vocabularies are explored further during the period. Other areas covered in the review include: classification, controlled vocabularies and name authority, evaluation and history of cataloging, special formats cataloging, cataloging and discovery services, non-AACR2/RDA metadata, cataloging workflows, and the education and careers of catalogers.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  17. Alonso Lifante, M.P.; Molero Madrid, F.J.: Enhancing OPAC records : evaluating and fitting within cataloguing standards a new proposal of description parameters for historical astronomical resources (2015) 0.06 
    0.061742336 = product of:
  0.0926135 = sum of:
    0.07201302 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07201302 = score(doc=2611,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
    0.020600483 = product of:
      0.041200966 = sum of:
        0.041200966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041200966 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Enhancing content description of specialized resources, particularly astronomical resources, is a matter that is still unresolved in library and information science. In this paper, the authors outline deficiencies in some fields and elements of cataloging standards for description of historical astronomical resources, mainly star atlases and catalogs. Furthermore, they review their recent proposal of astronomical parameters for a better description and propose an approach for accommodating these parameters in the current criteria of MARC 21, the International Standard Bibliographic Description, and Resource Description and Access. Fourteen new parameters are considered, and recommendations are provided to standards developers for the addition of elements to accommodate attributes of celestial cartographic resources. This would improve bibliographic records for such resources in astronomical libraries' OPACs, which will have a beneficial effect on information retrieval.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  18. Hider, P.: ¬The search value added by professional indexing to a bibliographic database (2017) 0.06 
    0.06160603 = product of:
  0.092409045 = sum of:
    0.06001085 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06001085 = score(doc=3868,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 3868, 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=3868)
    0.032398194 = product of:
      0.06479639 = sum of:
        0.06479639 = weight(_text_:searching in 3868) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06479639 = score(doc=3868,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20502694 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.3160384 = fieldWeight in 3868, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0452914 = idf(docFreq=2103, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3868)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Gross et al. (2015) have demonstrated that about a quarter of hits would typically be lost to keyword searchers if contemporary academic library catalogs dropped their controlled subject headings. This paper reports on an analysis of the loss levels that would result if a bibliographic database, namely the Australian Education Index (AEI), were missing the subject descriptors and identifiers assigned by its professional indexers, employing the methodology developed by Gross and Taylor (2005), and later by Gross et al. (2015). The results indicate that AEI users would lose a similar proportion of hits per query to that experienced by library catalog users: on average, 27% of the resources found by a sample of keyword queries on the AEI database would not have been found without the subject indexing, based on the Australian Thesaurus of Education Descriptors (ATED). The paper also discusses the methodological limitations of these studies, pointing out that real-life users might still find some of the resources missed by a particular query through follow-up searches, while additional resources might also be found through iterative searching on the subject vocabulary. The paper goes on to describe a new research design, based on a before - and - after experiment, which addresses some of these limitations. It is argued that this alternative design will provide a more realistic picture of the value that professionally assigned subject indexing and controlled subject vocabularies can add to literature searching of a more scholarly and thorough kind.
  19. Soulier, L.; Jabeur, L.B.; Tamine, L.; Bahsoun, W.: On ranking relevant entities in heterogeneous networks using a language-based model (2013) 0.06 
    0.06044337 = product of:
  0.09066506 = sum of:
    0.07349799 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07349799 = score(doc=664,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
    0.017167069 = product of:
      0.034334138 = sum of:
        0.034334138 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034334138 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17748274 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05068286 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, 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=664)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    A new challenge, accessing multiple relevant entities, arises from the availability of linked heterogeneous data. In this article, we address more specifically the problem of accessing relevant entities, such as publications and authors within a bibliographic network, given an information need. We propose a novel algorithm, called BibRank, that estimates a joint relevance of documents and authors within a bibliographic network. This model ranks each type of entity using a score propagation algorithm with respect to the query topic and the structure of the underlying bi-type information entity network. Evidence sources, namely content-based and network-based scores, are both used to estimate the topical similarity between connected entities. For this purpose, authorship relationships are analyzed through a language model-based score on the one hand and on the other hand, non topically related entities of the same type are detected through marginal citations. The article reports the results of experiments using the Bibrank algorithm for an information retrieval task. The CiteSeerX bibliographic data set forms the basis for the topical query automatic generation and evaluation. We show that a statistically significant improvement over closely related ranking models is achieved.
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:34:49
  20. Clarke, R.I.: Breaking records : the history of bibliographic records and their influence in conceptualizing bibliographic data (2015) 0.06 
    0.056010127 = product of:
  0.16803038 = sum of:
    0.16803038 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16803038 = score(doc=1877,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.19731061 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05068286 = queryNorm
        0.8516034 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    A bibliographic record is a conceptual whole that includes all bibliographic information about a resource together in one place. With the Semantic Web, individual data statements are linked across the web. This position article argues that the traditional conceptualization of bibliographic records affects the affordances and limitations of that data. A historical analysis of the development of bibliographic records contrasted with the Semantic Web model reveals how the "record" model shaped library cataloging and the implications on library catalogs today. Reification of the record model for bibliographic data hampers possibilities for innovation in cataloging, inspiring a reconceptualization of bibliographic description.

Authors

Languages

  • e 942
  • d 195
  • i 3
  • a 1
  • f 1
  • hu 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 1002
  • el 110
  • m 82
  • s 21
  • x 17
  • r 10
  • b 5
  • i 2
  • n 1
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications