Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023076165 = product of:
  0.04615233 = sum of:
    0.04615233 = product of:
      0.09230466 = sum of:
        0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09230466 = score(doc=785,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 785, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the light of a proposal for names of families to be treated as a separate form of name heading in the forthcoming Resource Description and Access, this article examines the treatment of families in the Anglo-American descriptive cataloging tradition and the extent to which names of families have been assigned as non-subject access points. It contrasts manuscript catalogers' practice of assigning family name headings with the general binary division of personal and corporate names, and discusses how an expansion of the library definition of authorship, so as to accommodate the archival concept of provenance, may more readily allow for familial and other non-corporate group authors. It concludes by suggesting that a corporate and non-corporate group categorisation may be unnecessary, and that instead the corporate body class should be revised, so as to encompass all groups of persons.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2007) no.2, S.65-82

0.023076165 = product of:
  0.04615233 = sum of:
    0.04615233 = product of:
      0.09230466 = sum of:
        0.09230466 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09230466 = score(doc=2724,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 2724, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Approaches to the measurement of catalog record quality are discussed. The systematic application of specific evaluation criteria may be more reliable than expert opinion, if not necessarily more accurate, and the construction of an error weightings table based on empirical investigation into catalog use is described. Although this process proved to be complex, and involved significant methodological problems, it was shown to be readily achievable. As catalog use may in many cases be insufficiently uniform across libraries to allow for generic evaluation criteria, it is proposed that cataloging managers construct their own set by studying the impact that record quality has on the particular use of their own catalogs. Thus more empirical research into catalog use is advocated, in order to supplement expert opinion and to build toward a practice of evidence-based cataloging.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 46(2008) no.4, S.338-361

0.021981878 = product of:
  0.043963756 = sum of:
    0.043963756 = product of:
      0.08792751 = sum of:
        0.08792751 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 234) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08792751 = score(doc=234,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 234, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=234)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules include special rules for personal name headings in certain languages under 22.21-22.28. This article investigates the extent to which four of these rules, pertaining to Indonesian, Malay, and Thai names, have been applied by catalogers contributing to the Australian National Bibliographic Database and discusses their value of these rules in the context of the general rules they supplement. It was found that many headings were not compliant with the rules, especially those resulting from English-language cataloging. Given catalogers' apparent difficulty in applying the special rules, it is recommended that they be deleted, that the general rules be further generalized, and that more use is made of relevant linguistic and cultural resources.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 43(2006) no.2, S.37-52

0.021981878 = product of:
  0.043963756 = sum of:
    0.043963756 = product of:
      0.08792751 = sum of:
        0.08792751 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5143) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08792751 = score(doc=5143,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 5143, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5143)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The four FRBR user tasks have become widely accepted as functions of the library catalog, but there have been only sporadic discussions concerning their validity and sufficiency, despite their modification in the models subsequently presented in the FRAD, FRSAD, and draft FRBR-LRM reports. This article presents a critique of the four variant sets of user tasks, and proposes an extended set of six generic end-user tasks, applicable to both bibliographic and authority data: locate, collocate, connect, identify, select, and obtain. The article also outlines their interrelationships and suggests those tasks that may be particularly well supported by professional cataloging.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.2, S.55-74

0.01884161 = product of:
  0.03768322 = sum of:
    0.03768322 = product of:
      0.07536644 = sum of:
        0.07536644 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07536644 = score(doc=2278,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.36948 = fieldWeight in 2278, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes the development and application of the Cat with Moose courseware in the cataloging curricula at Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore, which offers diploma-level, paraprofessional training in library and information service (LIS). The aim of Cat with Mouse is to provide students with practice in cataloging a range of materials, both print and nonprint, in an online environment. The courseware checks the entries as students progress through the record template and allows them to simultaneously consult windows containing the relevant sources of information. The product is designed to be used as a revision tool and is accessible to students through the Internet. The development team revised a prototype version after feedback was collected by means of a questionnaire. Most students found the courseware useful and that it made revision easier. It is argued that, as an assessment tool, Cat with Mouse is also reliable and valid, and that the distinctive benefits the courseware offers has made the investment in the project worthwhile.

0.015543535 = product of:
  0.03108707 = sum of:
    0.03108707 = product of:
      0.06217414 = sum of:
        0.06217414 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06217414 = score(doc=5772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5772, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 42(2006) no.2, S.35-58

0.015543535 = product of:
  0.03108707 = sum of:
    0.03108707 = product of:
      0.06217414 = sum of:
        0.06217414 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06217414 = score(doc=1958,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.8, S.857-872

0.015543535 = product of:
  0.03108707 = sum of:
    0.03108707 = product of:
      0.06217414 = sum of:
        0.06217414 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 709) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06217414 = score(doc=709,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 709, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=709)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 60(2022) no.2, p.194-213

0.0133230295 = product of:
  0.026646059 = sum of:
    0.026646059 = product of:
      0.053292118 = sum of:
        0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2995) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053292118 = score(doc=2995,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 2995, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2995)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 47(2009) no.6, S.xx-xx