Search (322 results, page 1 of 17)

0.094303444 = product of:
  0.18860689 = sum of:
    0.16648692 = weight(_text_:description in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16648692 = score(doc=1154,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.71916276 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 1154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=1154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

We examined how data provenance and additional information of element values including nomens, and administrative information on the metadata should be modeled and represented in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) for linked data of library catalogs. First, we classified such information types into categories and organized the combination with recording-units, i.e., a description statement or description set. Next, we listed the appropriate RDF representation patterns for each recording-unit. Then, we reviewed the methods to examine such information in Resource Description and Access (RDA) in RDF, BIBFRAME, and Wikidata, and pointed out the issues involved in them.

0.08414279 = product of:
  0.16828558 = sum of:
    0.13295574 = weight(_text_:description in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13295574 = score(doc=716,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5743203 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
    0.035329834 = product of:
      0.07065967 = sum of:
        0.07065967 = weight(_text_:access in 716) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07065967 = score(doc=716,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.41868407 = fieldWeight in 716, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=716)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Since Oliver's guide was first published in 2010, thousands of LIS students, records managers, and catalogers and other library professionals have relied on its clear, plainspoken explanation of RDA: Resource Description and Access as their first step towards becoming acquainted with the cataloging standard. Now, reflecting the changes to RDA after the completion of the 3R Project, Oliver brings her Special Report up to date. This essential primer concisely explains what RDA is, its basic features, and the main factors in its development describes RDA's relationship to the international standards and models that continue to influence its evolution provides an overview of the latest developments, focusing on the impact of the 3R Project, the results of aligning RDA with IFLA's Library Reference Model (LRM), and the outcomes of internationalization illustrates how information is organized in the post 3R Toolkit and explains how to navigate through this new structure; and discusses how RDA continues to enable improved resource discovery both in traditional and new applications, including the linked data environment.

LCSH

Resource description & access

RSWK

Bibliografische Daten / Datenmodell / Katalogisierung / Resource description and access / Theorie

Subject

Bibliografische Daten / Datenmodell / Katalogisierung / Resource description and access / Theorie
Resource description & access

0.067359604 = product of:
  0.13471921 = sum of:
    0.11891922 = weight(_text_:description in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11891922 = score(doc=5708,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5136877 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 5708) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=5708,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 5708, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5708)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant. Design/methodology/approach A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization. Findings Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants. Originality/value This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.

0.059196822 = product of:
  0.118393645 = sum of:
    0.08408859 = weight(_text_:description in 500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08408859 = score(doc=500,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.36323205 = fieldWeight in 500, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=500)
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 500) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=500,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 500, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=500)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

As part of the effort to digitally transform, organizations are seeking more and better solutions to long-standing enterprise content management challenges. Such solutions rarely investigate the relationship between knowledge workers' daily work to capture information and the perceived or actual value of that information to the enterprise per established content management strategy. The study described in this paper seeks to identify gaps in content management practices versus policy by modeling the conventions by which one organization's knowledge workers typically generate, store, and later recover their daily work products. Thirty-five interviews with knowledge workers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were conducted on this subject. The results of these interviews provide an insight as to how knowledge workers interact with enterprise content in their dual roles as both the primary creators and primary consumers of enterprise content. This paper, which outlines various permutations of the digital object creation, description, and storage (CDS) model, provides basic strategies for bringing the value perceptions of knowledge workers into alignment with institutional directives related to improving content findability and reuse in the enterprise.

Date

11. 2.2022 17:26:41

0.057262912 = product of:
  0.114525825 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=711)
    0.03128237 = product of:
      0.06256474 = sum of:
        0.06256474 = weight(_text_:access in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06256474 = score(doc=711,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 711, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In 2019, Pepperdine Libraries acquired two virtual reality artworks by filmmaker and artist Paisley Smith: Homestay and Unceded Territories. To bring awareness to these pieces, Pepperdine Libraries added these works to the library catalog, creating bibliographic records for both films. There were many challenges and considerations in cataloging virtual reality art, including factors such as the nature of the work, the limits found in Resource Description and Access (RDA) and MARC, and providing access to these works. This paper discusses these topics, as well as provides recommendations for potential future standards for cataloging virtual works.

0.056258798 = product of:
  0.112517595 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=5992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=5992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper examines the development of facet analysis as a methodology and the role it plays in building classifications and other knowledge-organization tools. The use of categorical analysis in areas other than library and information science is also considered. The suitability of the faceted approach for humanities documentation is explored through a critical description of the FATKS (Facet Analytical Theory in Managing Knowledge Structure for Humanities) project carried out at University College London. This research focused on building a conceptual model for the subject of religion together with a relational database and search-and-browse interfaces that would support some degree of automatic classification. The paper concludes with a discussion of the differences between the conceptual model and the vocabulary used to populate it, and how, in the case of religion, the choice of terminology can create an apparent bias in the system.

Date

27. 9.2020 20:26:16

0.052681718 = product of:
  0.105363436 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 5751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=5751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article presents a case study of RIMMF, a software tool developed to improve the orientation and training of catalogers who use Resource Description and Access (RDA) to maintain bibliographic data. The cataloging guidance and instructions of RDA are based on the Functional Requirements conceptual models that are now consolidated in the IFLA Library Reference Model, but many catalogers are applying RDA in systems that have evolved from inventory and text-processing applications developed from older metadata paradigms. The article describes how RIMMF interacts with the RDA Toolkit and RDA Registry to offer cataloger-friendly multilingual data input and editing interfaces.

0.052681718 = product of:
  0.105363436 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 5801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=5801,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 5801, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5801)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 5801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=5801,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5801, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Some international libraries are still using the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd edition revised, for cataloging even though the Library of Congress and other large libraries have retired it in favor of Resource Description and Access. One of these libraries is the National Library of Greece, which consults the Library of Congress database before establishing authorities. There are cultural differences in names and subjects between the Library of Congress and the National Library, but some National Library terms may be more appropriate for users than the Library of Congress-established forms.

0.052681718 = product of:
  0.105363436 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The mapping from BIBFRAME 2.0 to Resource Description and Access (RDA) is studied focusing on core entities, inherent relationships, and derivative relationships. The proposed mapping rules are evaluated with two gold datasets. Findings indicate that 1) core entities, inherent and derivative relationships may be mapped to RDA, 2) the use of the bf:hasExpression property may cluster bf:Works with the same ideational content and enable their mapping to RDA Works with their Expressions, and 3) cataloging policies have a significant impact on the interoperability between RDA and BIBFRAME datasets. This work complements the investigation of semantic interoperability between the two models previously presented in this journal.

0.052681718 = product of:
  0.105363436 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=707,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 707) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=707,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 707, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=707)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses the basics of creating name authority records for Arabic personal names in accordance with Resource Description and Access instructions and Program for Cooperative Cataloging guidelines. A background into the use of romanization for non-Latin scripts in bibliographic and authority records is provided to establish the context. Issues with romanization that are particular to Arabic are addressed. Separate sections on modern and classical names provide an overview of the major challenges, and strategies to enhance discovery are outlined. The paper concludes with an examination of the possible benefits of identity management and other changes in the authority control landscape for names in non-Latin script.

0.052681718 = product of:
  0.105363436 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=715,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=715,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Often relegated to a side note in conversations about curriculum materials collections, psychological tests deserve their own consideration in library cataloging. Libraries that are dedicated to psychology (or psychology and a related field, such as education) lend psychological tests either for reference or for usage in clinical training programs. These libraries, largely academic, have a need for guidelines regarding the cataloging of psychological tests, as those developed under the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, second edition (AACR2) are no longer satisfactory for Resource Description and Access (RDA) cataloging. This paper provides an overview of AACR2 cataloging guidelines and proposes new RDA best practices when cataloging psychological assessments, including kits.

0.052095592 = product of:
  0.104191184 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=706,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
    0.03283965 = product of:
      0.0656793 = sum of:
        0.0656793 = weight(_text_:access in 706) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0656793 = score(doc=706,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.38917357 = fieldWeight in 706, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=706)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Descriptive cataloging is the process of representing resources by recording their identifying traits and selecting specific names and titles to serve as access points. It is a key component of the larger cataloging process alongside subject cataloging, authority work, and encoding. Descriptive cataloging practices have existed for centuries and, over time, have become standardized through the use of cataloging codes. These documents guide this process by prescribing a consistent set of elements, providing directions on how to record these elements, and offering instructions on how to select and format access points. The goal of descriptive cataloging is not to create perfect representations but to provide data to serve users. The international cataloging standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) is now bringing more institutions under the same set of descriptive practices than ever before. This, along with recent technological developments, promises increased sharing and reuse of descriptive cataloging data.

0.050976 = product of:
  0.203904 = sum of:
    0.203904 = weight(_text_:description in 974) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.203904 = score(doc=974,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.8807909 = fieldWeight in 974, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=974)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper presents preliminary findings from an exploratory research study investigating the education, Library and Information Science (LIS) work experiences, and demographics of description specialists engaging in inclusive description work and/or initiatives. Survey results represent participants' education background, LIS work experiences, motivations behind projects and initiatives, areas of work and types of project priorities, preferred outcomes, and challenges encountered while engaging in inclusive description work and/or initiatives. Findings also point to gaps in understanding related to cultural concepts. A participant-created definition for inclusive description is a successful outcome of the study.

0.049022995 = product of:
  0.09804599 = sum of:
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
    0.056879934 = product of:
      0.11375987 = sum of:
        0.11375987 = weight(_text_:access in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11375987 = score(doc=138,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.67406833 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Open Access Helper <https://www.oahelper.org> ist eine Browser-Erweiterung, die es Ihren Nutzern leichter machen soll, Open Access Kopien für wissenschaftliche Literatur zu finden. Dabei prüft Open Access Helper im Hintergrund anhand der ausgezeichneten APIs von unpaywall.org and core.ac.uk. Neben der Möglichkeit Open Access Kopien zu finden, hat Open Access Helper <https://www.oahelper.org> nun einen wichtigen Schritt gemacht, Ihre Nutzer noch besser zu unterstützen. Dank der Zusammenarbeit mit einer Bibliothek in Irland, kann die Erweiterung Ihre Nutzer nun besser unterstützen. Als Bibliothek können Sie für Open Access Helper Ihren* EZProxy* und/oder ein *Anfrageformular* bzw. *Link Resolver* hinterlegen. Es entstehen Ihnen und Ihren Nutzerinnen und Nutzern hierbei keine Kosten. Open Access Helper gibt es für Chrome, Firefox, Safari (macOS) und auch für iPad & iPhone. Download Links finden Sie unter https://www.oahelper.org oder über eine Such im App / Extension Store Ihrer Wahl. Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter https://www.oahelper.org.

Date

15. 2.2021 13:26:25

Object

Open Access Helper

0.045155756 = product of:
  0.09031151 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=702,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 702, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=702)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Cataloging principles and objectives guide the formation of cataloging rules governing the organization of information within the library catalog, as well as the function of the catalog itself. Changes in technologies wrought by the internet and the web have been the driving forces behind shifting cataloging practice and reconfigurations of cataloging rules. Modern cataloging principles and objectives started in 1841 with the creation of Panizzi's 91 Rules for the British Museum and gained momentum with Charles Cutter's Rules for Descriptive Cataloging (1904). The first Statement of International Cataloguing Principles (ICP) was adopted in 1961, holding their place through such codifications as AACR and AACR2 in the 1970s and 1980s. Revisions accelerated starting in 2003 with the three original FR models. The Library Reference Model (LRM) in 2017 acted as a catalyst for the evolution of principles and objectives culminating in the creation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) in 2013.

0.045155756 = product of:
  0.09031151 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 765, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=765)
    0.018959979 = product of:
      0.037919957 = sum of:
        0.037919957 = weight(_text_:access in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037919957 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 765, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Question-and-answer (Q&A) sites improve access to information and ease transfer of knowledge. In recent years, they have grown in popularity and importance, enabling research on behavioral patterns of their users. We study the dynamics related to the casting of 7 M votes across a sample of 700 k posts on Stack Overflow, a large community of professional software developers. We employ log-Gaussian mixture modeling and Markov chains to formulate a simple yet elegant description of the considered phenomena. We indicate that the interevent times can naturally be clustered into 3 typical time scales: those which occur within hours, weeks, and months and show how the events become rarer and rarer as time passes. It turns out that the posts' popularity in a short period after publication is a weak predictor of its overall success, contrary to what was observed, for example, in case of YouTube clips. Nonetheless, the sleeping beauties sometimes awake and can receive bursts of votes following each other relatively quickly.

0.04459471 = product of:
  0.17837884 = sum of:
    0.17837884 = weight(_text_:description in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17837884 = score(doc=1193,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.77053154 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This study examines the concept of "description" and its theoretical foundations. The literature about it is surprisingly limited, and its usage is vague, sometimes even conflicting. Description should be considered in relation to other processes, such as representation, data capturing, and categorizing, which raises the question about what it means to describe something. Description is often used for any type of predication but may better be limited to predications based on observations. Research aims to establish criteria for making optimal descriptions; however, the problems involved in describing something have seldom been addressed. Specific ideals are often followed without examine their fruitfulness. This study provides evidence that description cannot be a neutral, objective activity; rather, it is a theory-laden and interest-based activity. In information science, description occurs in processes such as document description, descriptive metadata assignment, and information resource description. In this field, description has equally been used in conflicting ways that mostly do not evince a recognition of the value- and theory-laden nature of descriptions. It is argued that descriptive activities in information science should always be based on consciously explicit considerations of the goals that descriptions are meant to serve.

0.03965472 = product of:
  0.07930944 = sum of:
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=698,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 698, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=698)
    0.03128237 = product of:
      0.06256474 = sum of:
        0.06256474 = weight(_text_:access in 698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06256474 = score(doc=698,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 698, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The concept of authorship is central to how libraries organize their collections. But libraries do not only collect resources created by individuals, they also collect documents issued by organizations. Library catalogers use the concept of a "corporate body" to treat organizations as authors for the purpose of making their documents discoverable to users. This essay looks at the key features of establishing authorized access points (AAPs) and applying authority control for corporate bodies. It examines how practices with regard to corporate bodies have changed over time and considers the changes catalogers might expect to see in the future.

Date

26. 9.2022 17:46:34

0.03816245 = product of:
  0.0763249 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=890)
    0.01686529 = product of:
      0.03373058 = sum of:
        0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373058 = score(doc=890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 890, 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=890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Knowledge-enhanced short-text matching has been a significant task attracting much attention in recent years. However, the existing approaches cannot effectively balance effect and efficiency. Effective models usually consist of complex network structures leading to slow inference speed and the difficulties of applications in actual practice. In addition, most knowledge-enhanced models try to link the mentions in the text to the entities of the knowledge graphs-the difficulties of entity linking decrease the generalizability among different datasets. To address these problems, we propose a lightweight Semantic-Enhanced Interactive Network (SEIN) model for efficient short-text matching. Unlike most current research, SEIN employs an unsupervised method to select WordNet's most appropriate paraphrase description as the external semantic knowledge. It focuses on integrating semantic information and interactive information of text while simplifying the structure of other modules. We conduct intensive experiments on four real-world datasets, that is, Quora, Twitter-URL, SciTail, and SICK-E. Compared with state-of-the-art methods, SEIN achieves the best performance on most datasets. The experimental results proved that introducing external knowledge could effectively improve the performance of the short-text matching models. The research sheds light on the role of lightweight models in leveraging external knowledge to improve the effect of short-text matching.

Date

22. 1.2023 19:05:27

0.037629798 = product of:
  0.075259596 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=5718,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 5718) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=5718,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 5718, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5718)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Persistent identifiers (PID's) are essential for getting access and referring to library, archive and museum (LAM) collection objects in a sustainable and unambiguous way, both internally and externally. Heritage institutions need a universal policy for the use of PID's in order to have an efficient digital infrastructure at their disposal and to achieve optimal interoperability, leading to open data, open collections and efficient resource management. Here the discussion is limited to PID's that institutions can assign to objects they own or administer themselves. PID's for people, subjects etc. can be used by heritage institutions, but are generally managed by other parties. The first part of this article consists of a general theoretical description of persistent identifiers. First of all, I discuss the questions of what persistent identifiers are and what they are not, and what is needed to administer and use them. The most commonly used existing PID systems are briefly characterized. Then I discuss the types of objects PID's can be assigned to. This section concludes with an overview of the requirements that apply if PIDs should also be used for linked data. The second part examines current infrastructural practices, and existing PID systems and their advantages and shortcomings. Based on these practical issues and the pros and cons of existing PID systems a list of requirements for PID systems is presented which is used to address a number of practical considerations. This section concludes with a number of recommendations.