Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Lubas, R.L."
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Lubas, R.L.: ¬The evolution of bibliographic control of maps (2003) 0.03
    0.032634623 = product of:
      0.06526925 = sum of:
        0.06526925 = product of:
          0.1305385 = sum of:
            0.1305385 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5642) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.1305385 = score(doc=5642,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051756795 = queryNorm
                0.63995814 = fieldWeight in 5642, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5642)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Although maps have been used for thousands of years, they have not been maintained or organized as well as printed books until relatively recently. Maps were often treated as ephemeral material. Early attempts at map cataloging are much more scattered than book cataloging, and printed catalogs of early libraries often omitted the mention of maps. It was only after map use became commonplace and thematic maps increased in number that cataloging and classification attempts began in earnest. The classification and cataloging of maps started to come together in the early part of the twentieth century. This article will examine how maps were organized in early collections and some of the advice provided for catalogers of map collections from the end of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth.
    Footnote
    Also published as Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 35(2002/03)1/2 and 35(2002/03)3/4
    Source
    Historical aspects of cataloging and classification. Ed.: M.D. Joachim
  2. Lubas, R.L.: ¬The evolution of bibliographic control of maps (2003) 0.03
    0.032634623 = product of:
      0.06526925 = sum of:
        0.06526925 = product of:
          0.1305385 = sum of:
            0.1305385 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.1305385 = score(doc=5643,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051756795 = queryNorm
                0.63995814 = fieldWeight in 5643, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5643)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Although maps have been used for thousands of years, they have not been maintained or organized as well as printed books until relatively recently. Maps were often treated as ephemeral material. Early attempts at map cataloging are much more scattered than book cataloging, and printed catalogs of early libraries often omitted the mention of maps. It was only after map use became commonplace and thematic maps increased in number that cataloging and classification attempts began in earnest. The classification and cataloging of maps started to come together in the early part of the twentieth century. This article will examine how maps were organized in early collections and some of the advice provided for catalogers of map collections from the end of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification; Part II
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2003) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx
  3. Lubas, R.L.; Wolfe, R.H.W.; Fleischman, M.: Creating metadata practices for MIT's OpenCourseWare Project (2004) 0.01
    0.012271579 = product of:
      0.024543159 = sum of:
        0.024543159 = product of:
          0.049086317 = sum of:
            0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049086317 = score(doc=2843,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051756795 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2843, 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=2843)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Library hi tech. 22(2004) no.2, S.138-143