Search (1104 results, page 1 of 56)

0.12853791 = product of:
  0.25707582 = sum of:
    0.25707582 = sum of:
      0.20097718 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.20097718 = score(doc=152,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.98528004 = fieldWeight in 152, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=152)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=152,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 152, 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=152)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides a review of cataloging and classification publications that appeared in the last two years. The review considers the papers in two categories. Cataloging Theories and Practices covers descriptive cataloging, authority control, classification, subject cataloging, cataloging nonbook materials, electronic resources and metadata, and international cooperation. The second section covers other issues related to cataloging, including management, and education and training. Throughout the review, the author identifies trends and important developments in the area of cataloging and classification.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.123881854 = product of:
  0.24776371 = sum of:
    0.24776371 = sum of:
      0.1776404 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1776404 = score(doc=4056,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.87087274 = fieldWeight in 4056, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4056)
      0.070123315 = weight(_text_:22 in 4056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.070123315 = score(doc=4056,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4056, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4056)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Also published as Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 35(2002/03)1/2 and 35(2002/03)3/4

Pages

S.3-22

Source

Historical aspects of cataloging and classification. Ed.: M.D. Joachim

0.11126046 = product of:
  0.22252092 = sum of:
    0.22252092 = sum of:
      0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12434828 = score(doc=2857,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
      0.098172635 = weight(_text_:22 in 2857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.098172635 = score(doc=2857,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 2857, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2857)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 13(1991) no.2, S.3-22

0.10749253 = product of:
  0.21498506 = sum of:
    0.21498506 = sum of:
      0.1588864 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1588864 = score(doc=43,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.7789323 = fieldWeight in 43, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=43)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 43) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=43,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 43, 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=43)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A survey of 261 libraries was undertaken to determine the level of use of and duties performed by student assistants in monographic cataloging operations. Ninety-five of 142 responding libraries (64.1 percent) indicate that they use student assistants for some type of monographic cataloging tasks. These tasks are downloading of bibliographic and authority records, monographic cataloging, classification, subject heading authority control, holdings, database maintenance, and editing of 246 or 505 MARC tags. Some respondents expressed reluctance to use student assistants for higher-level cataloging tasks.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.10679182 = product of:
  0.21358363 = sum of:
    0.21358363 = sum of:
      0.16449732 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16449732 = score(doc=602,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.80643946 = fieldWeight in 602, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=602)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=602,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 602, 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=602)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reviews issues related to the cataloging of Internet resources and considers shortand long-term directions for cataloging and the general provision of library services for remotely accessible, electronic information resources. The strengths and weakness of using a library catalog model to improve access to Internet resources are discussed and compared with a review of related efforts. Based on experience gained through two OCLC Internet cataloging projects, the authors recommend continued and vigorous appplication of library cataloging standards and methods for Internet resources with the expectation that catalogs, cataloging, and libraries in general will continue to evolve.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.197-238

0.10679182 = product of:
  0.21358363 = sum of:
    0.21358363 = sum of:
      0.16449732 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16449732 = score(doc=2609,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.80643946 = fieldWeight in 2609, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2609)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=2609,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2609, 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=2609)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a research study, a survey of library and information science master's degree holders who have taken a beginning cataloging course, to identify the elements of a beginning cataloging course that help students to learn cataloging concepts and skills. The results suggest that cataloging practice (the hands-on creation of bibliographic records or catalog cards), the effectiveness of the instructor, a balance of theory and practice, and placing cataloging in a real-world context contribute to effective learning. However, more research is needed to determine how, and to what the extent, each element should be incorporated into beginning cataloging courses.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.105299234 = product of:
  0.21059847 = sum of:
    0.21059847 = sum of:
      0.16852447 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.16852447 = score(doc=103,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.8261824 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 103, 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=103)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Twenty-five years of research in expert systems for descriptive cataloging and related areas are reviewed. Researchers who developed prototype expert cataloging systems in the 1980s found that cataloging rules are extremely comprehensive and complicated, but still insufficient to permit these systems accurate cataloging results. Those researchers also identified smaller areas that need to be pursued for successful implementation of expert cataloging systems. Subsequent research has focused on narrower areas. Cataloging rules were studied and more was learned about problems with their logic structure and organization. Another focus was optical reading of bibliographic elements in documents. Categories of responsibility and graphic design continue to pose problems. The visual characteristics of documents were studied to understand more about the automatic recognition of bibliographic elements necessary for the bibliographic description of documents. The systematic study of the cataloging process, necessary for development of expert systems, may result in improvement of manual working procedures and enrich the education of new catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.10069061 = product of:
  0.20138122 = sum of:
    0.20138122 = sum of:
      0.1522949 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1522949 = score(doc=4121,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.7466178 = fieldWeight in 4121, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4121)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 4121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=4121,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4121, 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=4121)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A few years into the development of Cataloger's Desktop, an electronic cataloging tool aggregator available through the Library of Congress, is an opportune time to assess its impact on cataloging operations. A search for online cataloging tools on the Internet indicates a proliferation of cataloging tool aggregators which provide access to online documentation related to cataloging practices and procedures. Cataloger's Desktop stands out as a leader among these aggregators. Results of a survey to assess 159 academic ARL and large public libraries' reasons for use or non-use of Cataloger's Desktop highlight the necessity of developing strategies for its successful implementation including training staff, providing documentation, and managing technical issues.

Date

28. 7.2006 20:09:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2001) no.1, S.21-31

0.10069061 = product of:
  0.20138122 = sum of:
    0.20138122 = sum of:
      0.1522949 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1522949 = score(doc=128,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.7466178 = fieldWeight in 128, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=128)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=128,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 128, 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=128)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines existing library and personnel literature to determine whether any strides have been made among academic libraries in determining cataloging productivity benchmarks. The perceived importance of performance evaluations based on quantitative and qualitative standards is explored, as is the intended effect of established cataloging production norms. The pros and cons of cataloging benchmarks are analyzed from four different perspectives: library administration, library human resources, cataloging managers, and cataloging staff. The paper concludes that additional research is needed in order to determine whether established production cataloging benchmarks are feasible and meaningful within academic libraries.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.10069061 = product of:
  0.20138122 = sum of:
    0.20138122 = sum of:
      0.1522949 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1522949 = score(doc=4309,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.7466178 = fieldWeight in 4309, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4309)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 4309) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=4309,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4309, 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=4309)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper surveys library literature on cataloging and classification published in 2007-8, indicating its extent and range in terms of types of literature, major subject areas, and themes. The paper reviews pertinent literature in the following areas: the future of bibliographic control, general cataloging standards and texts, Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), cataloging varied resources, metadata and cataloging in the Web world, classification and subject access, questions of diversity and diverse perspectives, additional reports of practice and research, catalogers' education and careers, keeping current through columns and blogs, and cataloging history.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.099105485 = product of:
  0.19821097 = sum of:
    0.19821097 = sum of:
      0.14211231 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14211231 = score(doc=4946,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.6966982 = fieldWeight in 4946, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4946)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 4946) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=4946,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4946, 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=4946)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging is an important part of library education. Concerns about the declining number of required introductory cataloging courses led to this study in which data collected from library school bulletins were compared to data gathered in a similar 1986 study. Results indicate that the number of required iniroductory cataloging courses has dropped.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.099105485 = product of:
  0.19821097 = sum of:
    0.19821097 = sum of:
      0.14211231 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 6095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14211231 = score(doc=6095,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.6966982 = fieldWeight in 6095, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6095)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 6095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=6095,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6095, 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=6095)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Libraries, their collections, and bibliographic control are essential components of the provision of access to recorded knowledge. Cataloging is a primary method of bibliographic control. Full or traditional cataloging is very expensive, but relying on keyword searching is inadequate. Alternatives for a solution to cataloging needs for electronic resources including the use of metadata and the Dublin Core are examined. Many questions exist regarding the long-term future of today's electronic documents. Recommendations are made for preserving recorded knowledge and information in the electronic resources for future generations

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(1999) no.1, S.5-22

0.099105485 = product of:
  0.19821097 = sum of:
    0.19821097 = sum of:
      0.14211231 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14211231 = score(doc=358,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.6966982 = fieldWeight in 358, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=358)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=358,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 358, 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=358)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a year-long survey conducted at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) to determine what level of cataloging copy (Library of Congress, member input, or none) is present on OCLC at the time an item is received in Technical Services and after a six-month waiting period. These results were used to divert selected monographs from the normal workflow in order to expedite their cataloging and to release needed shelf space for other items.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 7(1987) no.3, S.13-22

0.096403435 = product of:
  0.19280687 = sum of:
    0.19280687 = sum of:
      0.15073287 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15073287 = score(doc=5386,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.73896 = fieldWeight in 5386, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5386)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 5386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=5386,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5386, 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=5386)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes the cataloging operations and management in three medium-sized academic libraries - Oregon State University, University of Houston, and Colorado State University. It provides an overview of the staffing and organizational structure of the cataloging department in each library. Faced with similar challenges from constantly changing environments brought about by technology and institutional pressure to achieve more with less, library technical services in these three libraries, cataloging in particular, are developing some common strategies for coping. These trends include: (1) changing the roles and responsibilities of both professional and support staff (2) designing workflow around library systems and limited personnel resources, (3) mainstreaming government documents cataloging and processing into technical services, (4) using technology to increase cataloging efficiency, and (5) dealing with bibliographic control of current electronic resources and moving into digitization and metadata arenas.

Date

27. 7.2006 18:22:11

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Managing cataloging and the organization of information: philosophies, practices and challenges at the onset of the 21st century. Part II: Specialized and academic libraries in the United States"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 30(2000) nos.2/3, S.315-329

0.096403435 = product of:
  0.19280687 = sum of:
    0.19280687 = sum of:
      0.15073287 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15073287 = score(doc=71,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.73896 = fieldWeight in 71, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=71)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 71) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=71,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 71, 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=71)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging rules for computer-based materials were first introduced in the 1970s, and since then have undergone almost continuous modification and revision. This article focuses on analysis and comparison of the various codes and guidelines for practice issued for what are now called electronic resources. Creation of new cataloging rules has been spurred by introduction of new physical carriers, the preeminence of materials accessed remotely versus those with physical carriers, the need for guidance in cataloging specific instances of computer-based materials, and the evolution of the theoretical concerns underlying the cataloging codes. Based on this history of constant change, it is easy to predict many more changes in the cataloging standards for computer-based materials in the future. However, continuous changes in the cataloging rules may have produced as much confusion as clarity for working catalogers. Caution should be exercised in the creation of new rules and standards for cataloging electronic resources, as it is possible that older rules and standards may, in fact, be readily adapted to new types of electronic resources.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.095366105 = product of:
  0.19073221 = sum of:
    0.19073221 = sum of:
      0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.106584236 = score(doc=4242,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 4242, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4242)
      0.084147975 = weight(_text_:22 in 4242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084147975 = score(doc=4242,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4242, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4242)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

15. 6.1996 18:06:22

Series

Cataloging and classification quarterly; vol.17, nos.1/2

0.095366105 = product of:
  0.19073221 = sum of:
    0.19073221 = sum of:
      0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.106584236 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
      0.084147975 = weight(_text_:22 in 2622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084147975 = score(doc=2622,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2622, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2622)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Technicalities 22(2002) no.1, S.19-20 (S.S. Intner)

0.094055966 = product of:
  0.18811193 = sum of:
    0.18811193 = sum of:
      0.13902561 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13902561 = score(doc=5112,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.68156576 = fieldWeight in 5112, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5112)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 5112) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=5112,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5112, 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=5112)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging and accessing non-roman languages, such as the languages in the JACKPHY group, have been better served because of the inclusion of vernacular languages in their bibliographic records. However, Southeast Asian languages such as Thai, Lao or even Burmese present other problems for catalogers because only romanized versions of these languages are present in current bibliographic records. The problems in cataloging and accessing the materials in these languages occur not only because of the romanization system but also due to the nature of the languages themselves. This paper presents a number of problems related to the cataloging of Thai language materials.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.2, S.10-28

0.094055966 = product of:
  0.18811193 = sum of:
    0.18811193 = sum of:
      0.13902561 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13902561 = score(doc=2118,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.68156576 = fieldWeight in 2118, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2118)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=2118,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2118, 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=2118)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Library of Congress is participating in a number of initiatives to explore issues surrounding description and cataloging of digital materials. Additionally, programs have been written by LC staff which enable electronic enhancements in cataloging activities, such as the receipt of online information from publishers in the Electronic CIP Program. This paper is both an overview of the status of cataloging-related digital projects at LC and a description of software which facilitates productivity through the provision of advanced search capabilities and the elimination of repetitive keying.

Series

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

0.094055966 = product of:
  0.18811193 = sum of:
    0.18811193 = sum of:
      0.13902561 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13902561 = score(doc=5479,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.68156576 = fieldWeight in 5479, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5479)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 5479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=5479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5479, 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=5479)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses the development of descriptive cataloging from 1830 to 1908 and focuses on the careers of Antonio Panizzi, Charles Coffin Jewett, and Charles Ammi Cutter and the development of the American Library Association (ALA) and the Library Association of the United Kingdom (LAUK). It analyzes the various rules and codes put forth by both Americans and British librarians and the eventual cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification; Part I

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2002) nos.1/2, S.3-22