Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.080619395 = product of:
  0.16123879 = sum of:
    0.16123879 = sum of:
      0.1191648 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1191648 = score(doc=5188,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.5841992 = fieldWeight in 5188, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5188)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 5188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=5188,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5188, 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=5188)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article asserts that many research questions (RQs) in cataloging reflect design-based RQs, rather than traditional scientific ones. To support this idea, a review of existing discussions of RQs is presented to identify prominent types of RQs, including design-based RQs. RQ types are then classified into a taxonomic framework and compared with RQs from the Everyday Cataloger Concerns project, which aimed to identify important areas of research from the perspective of practicing catalogers. This comparative method demonstrates the ways in which the research areas identified by cataloging practitioners reflect design RQs-and therefore require design approaches and methods to answer them.

Date

30. 5.2019 19:14:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.8, S.683-701

0.026922192 = product of:
  0.053844385 = sum of:
    0.053844385 = product of:
      0.10768877 = sum of:
        0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1877) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10768877 = score(doc=1877,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 1877, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1877)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.3/4, S.286-302

0.02220505 = product of:
  0.0444101 = sum of:
    0.0444101 = product of:
      0.0888202 = sum of:
        0.0888202 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0888202 = score(doc=5464,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43543637 = fieldWeight in 5464, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Library work is increasingly being explored from the perspective of design. Still, little work has actively explored specific aspects of design as they relate to library cataloging. The purpose of this paper is to dive deeper into the relationship between library cataloging and design by exploring a specific aspect of design - the concept of repertoire, or the use of previous experiences and bodies of knowledge during current work. Design/methodology/approach To examine catalogers' use of repertoire, this paper employed a juxtaposition of field observations of professional library catalogers' work processes with elements of "think-aloud" protocols. Findings The researchers identified three major types of repertory knowledge that were demonstrated by catalogers: internally embedded repertory knowledge; externally embedded repertory knowledge; and seeking out new knowledge using other sources. Additionally, certain trends were noted concerning which repertory knowledge was utilized for which particular task. Determining subject and genre headings were noted for relying quite extensively on internal repertoire such as personal knowledge and institutional knowledge, along with external sources, such as personal notes and local examples. Originality/value This paper adds to a growing body of work calling for design approaches in libraries and related information settings, and breaks ground by applying the previously unexplored concept of repertoire to librarianship, specifically library cataloging, which offers a new perspective on cataloger's judgement.