Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"O'Dell, A.J."
  • × theme_ss:"Formalerschließung"
  1. O'Dell, A.J.: How much does it cost to catalog a document? : a case study in Estonian university libraries (2015) 0.03 
    0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2616) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=2616,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 2616, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2616)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In the current socioeconomic climate, efficiency and performance have become very important in libraries. The need for library managers to justify their costs to their parent organizations has become particularly important. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) helps libraries to get a better picture of the cataloging activities that they are actually engaged in, and their costs. This article reviews the relevant literature to provide an overview of different cost accounting methods suitable for the measurement of the cataloging process. Then, through a case study conducted among Estonian university libraries, the TDABC approach was used to analyze the activities of cataloging process in two university libraries.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.7, S.825-850
  2. O'Dell, A.J.: Maker metadata : problems and possibilities (2015) 0.02 
    0.021981878 = product of:
  0.043963756 = sum of:
    0.043963756 = product of:
      0.08792751 = sum of:
        0.08792751 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08792751 = score(doc=2618,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 2618, 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=2618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Information about makers is critical to bibliographic research, and special collections cataloging norms provide maker metadata. Still, access to maker metadata is hampered in online library catalogs. This article investigates the betterment of maker metadata in (or alongside) library catalogs using existing content guidelines, encoding schemas, and data models. Discussion finds that libraries have appropriate tools for improving access to maker metadata. This article thus encourages the profession to coordinate access to maker metadata. Cooperative maker description and the merger and/or linking of datasets generated by the research community are suggested areas for future investigation.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 53(2015) no.7, S.785-800
  3. Kleeck, D. Van; Nakano, H.; Langford, G.; Shelton, T.; Lundgren, J.; O'Dell, A.J.: Managing bibliographic data quality for electronic resources (2017) 0.02 
    0.021981878 = product of:
  0.043963756 = sum of:
    0.043963756 = product of:
      0.08792751 = sum of:
        0.08792751 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08792751 = score(doc=5160,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 5160, 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=5160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article presents a case study of quality management issues for electronic resource metadata to assess the support of user tasks (find, select, and obtain library resources) and potential for increased efficiencies in acquisitions and cataloging workflows. The authors evaluated the quality of existing bibliographic records (mostly vendor supplied) for e-resource collections as compared with records for the same collections in OCLC's WorldShare Collection Manager (WCM). Findings are that WCM records better support user tasks by containing more summaries and tables of contents; other checkpoints are largely comparable between the two source record groups. The transition to WCM records is discussed.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 55(2017) no.7/8, S.560-577

Authors