Search (411 results, page 1 of 21)

0.09184693 = product of:
  0.18369386 = sum of:
    0.15826766 = weight(_text_:media in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15826766 = score(doc=673,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.7244994 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
    0.0254262 = product of:
      0.0508524 = sum of:
        0.0508524 = weight(_text_:research in 673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0508524 = score(doc=673,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.38217562 = fieldWeight in 673, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=673)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The appropriateness of utilising a training resource programme consisting of a mix of media and technologies for the training of cataloguing students is evaluated. The findings from reported research and evaluation of the training resource programme made it possible to identify advantages and disadvantages of using such a programme. The results of the research enabled the researcher to derive guidelines for the design and development of a training resource programme consisting of a mix of media and technologies. The use of media and technologies, in a training research programme for cataloguing training, can be utilised in training cataloguing students in contact classes, distance education as well as in-service training.

0.06633627 = product of:
  0.13267253 = sum of:
    0.11191213 = weight(_text_:media in 345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11191213 = score(doc=345,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.5122984 = fieldWeight in 345, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=345)
    0.020760404 = product of:
      0.041520808 = sum of:
        0.041520808 = weight(_text_:research in 345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041520808 = score(doc=345,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 345, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In an attempt to determine whether further research and discussion is justified in the area of the description of reproductions of previously existing works, this project estimated what proportion of a research library's collection existed in multiple physical manifestation throughout the bibliographical universe. Between a fifth and a third (21-32 %) of the sampled collection was found to be in multiple manifestation. There was less diversity of media in multiple manifestations than expected: 13% of the manifestations identified were microforms, 3.4% were in other media. Seventy-five percent of those works found in multiple manifestation had only one other manifestation identified; the largest number of multiple manifestations identified for one work was 83.

0.05785721 = product of:
  0.11571442 = sum of:
    0.090438664 = weight(_text_:media in 6732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090438664 = score(doc=6732,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.41399965 = fieldWeight in 6732, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6732)
    0.025275761 = product of:
      0.050551523 = sum of:
        0.050551523 = weight(_text_:22 in 6732) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050551523 = score(doc=6732,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6732, 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=6732)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Considers the problem of applying standard concepts of cataloguing and bibliographic control to electronic media by studying the degree of fit between the Standford Integrated Digital Library Project (SDLP) and both the USMARC format and the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI). Notes the lack of fit of both USMARC and TEI but stresses the advantages of the latter due its lack of dependency on 3 digit tags and its use of SGML conventions

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.05785721 = product of:
  0.11571442 = sum of:
    0.090438664 = weight(_text_:media in 7231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090438664 = score(doc=7231,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.41399965 = fieldWeight in 7231, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7231)
    0.025275761 = product of:
      0.050551523 = sum of:
        0.050551523 = weight(_text_:22 in 7231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050551523 = score(doc=7231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7231, 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=7231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Considers the new Guidelines for bibliographic description of interactive multimedia published by the ALA in 1994. Examines the current and future status of the Guidelines and discusses the problems involved in applying them to the media coming into the library at La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia

Source

Cataloguing Australia. 22(1996) nos.1/2, S.17-20

0.057440754 = product of:
  0.11488151 = sum of:
    0.09592469 = weight(_text_:media in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09592469 = score(doc=2603,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.43911293 = fieldWeight in 2603, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2603)
    0.01895682 = product of:
      0.03791364 = sum of:
        0.03791364 = weight(_text_:22 in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03791364 = score(doc=2603,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2603, 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=2603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This comprehensive annotated webliography describes online cataloging resources that are free to use, currently updated, and of high quality. The major aim of this webliography is to provide assistance for catalogers who are new to the profession, unfamiliar with cataloging specific formats, or unable to access costly print and subscription resources. The annotated resources include general websites and webpages, databases, workshop presentations, streaming media, and local documentation. The scope of the webliography is limited to resources reflecting traditional cataloging practices using the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, RDA: Resource Description and Access, and MAchine Readable Cataloging (MARC) standards. Non-MARC metadata schemas like Dublin Core are not covered. Most components of cataloging are represented in this webliography, such as authority control, classification, subject headings, and genre terms. Guidance also is provided for cataloging miscellaneous formats including sound and videorecordings, streaming media, e-books, video games, graphic novels, kits, rare materials, maps, serials, realia, government documents, and music.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.05062506 = product of:
  0.10125012 = sum of:
    0.07913383 = weight(_text_:media in 6736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07913383 = score(doc=6736,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.3622497 = fieldWeight in 6736, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6736)
    0.02211629 = product of:
      0.04423258 = sum of:
        0.04423258 = weight(_text_:22 in 6736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04423258 = score(doc=6736,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6736, 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=6736)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Compares and contrasts the essential differences between traditional and digital information media, reexamines the role of OPACs, refines the definition of library catalogues, and advocates the addition of Internet resources within the OPAC. Describes the building of the Alex Catalog, as part of the Alcuin Project at North Carolina State University, a catalogue of Internet resources in the format of MARC format records. Concludes with a process for integrating the further inclusion of other Internet resources into OPACs as well as some of the obstacles such a process manifests

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.22, nos.3/4

0.05062506 = product of:
  0.10125012 = sum of:
    0.07913383 = weight(_text_:media in 771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07913383 = score(doc=771,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.3622497 = fieldWeight in 771, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=771)
    0.02211629 = product of:
      0.04423258 = sum of:
        0.04423258 = weight(_text_:22 in 771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04423258 = score(doc=771,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 771, 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=771)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

24. 1.2007 19:38:22

Footnote

Festschrift article to mark the retirement of Douglas Anderson from 24 years at the School of Information and Media, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland

0.039566915 = product of:
  0.15826766 = sum of:
    0.15826766 = weight(_text_:media in 1981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15826766 = score(doc=1981,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.7244994 = fieldWeight in 1981, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1981)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The German National Library of Science and Technology (TIB) developed a Web-based platform for audiovisual media. The audiovisual portal optimizes access to scientific videos such as computer animations and lecture and conference recordings. TIB's AV-Portal combines traditional cataloging and automatic indexing of audiovisual media. The article describes metadata standards for audiovisual media and introduces the TIB's metadata schema in comparison to other metadata standards for non-textual materials. Additionally, we give an overview of multimedia retrieval technologies used for the Portal and present the AV-Portal in detail as well as the additional value for libraries and their users.

0.03916109 = product of:
  0.15664436 = sum of:
    0.15664436 = weight(_text_:media in 6398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15664436 = score(doc=6398,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.71706843 = fieldWeight in 6398, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6398)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the challenges encountered in the cataloguing of electronic media in the light of proposed changes to legal deposit. These included: how to install and de-install the software and application of the 20 per cent rule of LCSH. The British Library is now prepared for the possibility of extended legal deposit for electronic media

0.03916109 = product of:
  0.15664436 = sum of:
    0.15664436 = weight(_text_:media in 459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15664436 = score(doc=459,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.71706843 = fieldWeight in 459, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=459)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article is about the conceptual framework of the original cataloging process that is used to catalog the audiovisual a materials at the New York Chiropractic College Media Resources Library. The cataloging norms serve as the conceptual underpinnings to the Cataloging Policy Manual of the New York Chiropractic College Media Resources Library. The paper describes the use of the various cataloging standards and policies that are used as well as the use and assignment of the National Library of Medicine classification to ensure access to the audiovisual collection.

0.03616076 = product of:
  0.07232152 = sum of:
    0.056524165 = weight(_text_:media in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056524165 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=187)
    0.01579735 = product of:
      0.0315947 = sum of:
        0.0315947 = weight(_text_:22 in 187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0315947 = score(doc=187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16332182 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 187, 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=187)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The formal charge for the IFLA study involving international bibliography standards was to delineate the functions that are performed by the bibliographic record with respect to various media, applications, and user needs. The method used was the entity relationship analysis technique. Three groups of entities that are the key objects of interest to users of bibliographic records were defined. The primary group contains four entities: work, expression, manifestation, and item. The second group includes entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content, production, or ownership of entities in the first group. The third group includes entities that represent concepts, objects, events, and places. In the study we identified the attributes associated with each entity and the relationships that are most important to users. The attributes and relationships were mapped to the functional requirements for bibliographic records that were defined in terms of four user tasks: to find, identify, select, and obtain. Basic requirements for national bibliographic records were recommended based on the entity analysis. The recommendations of the study are compared with two standards, AACR (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules) and the Dublin Core, to place them into pragmatic context. The results of the study are being used in the review of the complete set of ISBDs as the initial benchmark in determining data elements for each format.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.034265954 = product of:
  0.13706382 = sum of:
    0.13706382 = weight(_text_:media in 2002) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13706382 = score(doc=2002,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.62743485 = fieldWeight in 2002, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2002)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The collection of nearly 1,000 piano rolls housed within the Department of Musicology and Cultural Heritage, University of Pavia, Cremona, Italy, remains in need of preservation. A digitalization project requires cataloging based on international cataloging standards. A distinction among instruments and media must be introduced and specific features of mechanical musical devices are to be identified. Four main classes of media have been identified: disks, pinned barrels, books, and rolls. Lastly, morphological peculiarities of the media must be examined to establish their correct and complete description within the International Standard for Bibliographic Description (ISBD) areas.

0.0339145 = product of:
  0.135658 = sum of:
    0.135658 = weight(_text_:media in 4622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.135658 = score(doc=4622,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.62099946 = fieldWeight in 4622, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4622)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of educational media and library sciences. 35(1998) no.4, S.283-293

0.033504877 = product of:
  0.067009754 = sum of:
    0.056524165 = weight(_text_:media in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056524165 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
    0.010485589 = product of:
      0.020971177 = sum of:
        0.020971177 = weight(_text_:research in 677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020971177 = score(doc=677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Resource Description & Access (RDA) is intended to provide a flexible and extensible framework that can accommodate all types of content and media within rapidly evolving digital environments while also maintaining compatibility with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition (AACR2). The cataloging community is grappling with practical issues in navigating the transition from AACR2 to RDA; there is a definite need to evaluate major subject areas and broader themes in information organization under the new RDA paradigm. This article aims to accomplish this task through a thorough and critical review of the emerging RDA literature published from 2005 to 2011. The review mostly concerns key areas of difference between RDA and AACR2, the relationship of the new cataloging code to metadata standards, the impact on encoding standards such as Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC), end user considerations, and practitioners' views on RDA implementation and training. Future research will require more in-depth studies of RDA's expected benefits and the manner in which the new cataloging code will improve resource retrieval and bibliographic control for users and catalogers alike over AACR2. The question as to how the cataloging community can best move forward to the post-AACR2/MARC environment must be addressed carefully so as to chart the future of bibliographic control in the evolving environment of information production, management, and use.

0.033504877 = product of:
  0.067009754 = sum of:
    0.056524165 = weight(_text_:media in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056524165 = score(doc=3875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.25874978 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
    0.010485589 = product of:
      0.020971177 = sum of:
        0.020971177 = weight(_text_:research in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020971177 = score(doc=3875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13306029 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046639 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This presentation applies the principles of phylogenetic classification to the phenomenon of bibliographic relationships in library catalogues. We argue that while the FRBR paradigm supports hierarchical bibliographic relationships between works and their various expressions and manifestations, we need a different paradigm to support associative bibliographic relationships of the kind detected in previous research. Numerous studies have shown the existence and importance of bibliographic relationships that lie outside that hierarchical FRBR model: particularly the importance of bibliographic families. We would like to suggest phylogenetics as a potential means of gaining access to those more elusive and ephemeral relationships. Phylogenetic analysis does not follow the Platonic conception of an abstract work that gives rise to specific instantiations; rather, it tracks relationships of kinship as they evolve over time. We use two examples to suggest ways in which phylogenetic trees could be represented in future library catalogues. The novels of Jane Austen are used to indicate how phylogenetic trees can represent, with greater accuracy, the line of Jane Austen adaptations, ranging from contemporary efforts to complete her unfinished work, through to the more recent efforts to graft horror memes onto the original text. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey provides an example of charting relationships both backwards and forwards in time, across different media and genres. We suggest three possible means of applying phylogenetic s in the future: enhancement of the relationship designators in RDA, crowdsourcing user tags, and extracting relationship trees through big data analysis.

0.031974897 = product of:
  0.12789959 = sum of:
    0.12789959 = weight(_text_:media in 1898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12789959 = score(doc=1898,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.5854839 = fieldWeight in 1898, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1898)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As Digital Media develops into a mature market, the proper referencing of digital content is increasingly critical. The Identification of Parties who contributes to content is key to ensure efficient discovery services and royalty tracking. Far from being simple numbers, Party Identifiers such as ISNI, are built on rigorous structures meeting the requirements of diverse media such as books, music or films. Designed to accurately identify Natural Persons and Legal Entities alike, Party Identifiers must also support language variances, cultural diversity and stringent data privacy regulations.

0.028262082 = product of:
  0.11304833 = sum of:
    0.11304833 = weight(_text_:media in 6103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11304833 = score(doc=6103,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.51749957 = fieldWeight in 6103, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6103)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The third ed. of 'Nonbook materials' is updated to bring the practice of nonbook cataloguing into line with the principles set out in the 1988 revision of AACR2. A standard in its field, 'Nonbook materials' is intended for use in all libraries and media centres

0.028262082 = product of:
  0.11304833 = sum of:
    0.11304833 = weight(_text_:media in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11304833 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.51749957 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.027978033 = product of:
  0.11191213 = sum of:
    0.11191213 = weight(_text_:media in 408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11191213 = score(doc=408,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.5122984 = fieldWeight in 408, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=408)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

As an illustration of the general concern about how bibliographic records for graphic materials can be integrated most effectively with records for works in other media, this article presents problems associated with applying existing AACR2 guidelines for choice of entry. Characteristics of original items and historical collections of pictures, the role of corporate bodies in creating such materials, and the degree to which AACR2 provisions for entry under the heading for a corporate body accommodate these features are examined. Recommendations regarding extending AACR2 Rule 21.1B2 and, more generally, regarding the need to examine the meaning and objectives of integrating bibliographic records for various media and actors affecting this process, are made.

0.027978033 = product of:
  0.11191213 = sum of:
    0.11191213 = weight(_text_:media in 1978) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11191213 = score(doc=1978,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21845107 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046639 = queryNorm
        0.5122984 = fieldWeight in 1978, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6838713 = idf(docFreq=1110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1978)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In moving to Resource Description and Access (RDA), the change from recording a General Material Designation (GMD) to recording separate elements for Content, Media, and Carrier has attracted most of the cataloging world's attention. By themselves, these elements do not provide the user with enough nuance to perform the basic functions of finding, identifying, selecting, and obtaining materials. RDA includes a set of lower-level elements called Carrier Characteristics for describing these resource's properties; however, these elements have not enjoyed as much discussion in the professional literature as have the three higher-tier elements. Details of RDA's carrier characteristics are discussed and their shortcomings are analyzed.