Search (196 results, page 1 of 10)

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

0.09117665 = product of:
  0.1823533 = sum of:
    0.1823533 = sum of:
      0.14729165 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14729165 = score(doc=138,freq=22.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.7220895 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
            4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
              22.0 = termFreq=22.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
      0.035061657 = weight(_text_:22 in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035061657 = score(doc=138,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents findings of a survey an the state of cataloging and metadata education. in ALA-accredited library and information science progranis in North America. The survey was conducted in response to Action Item 5.1 of the "Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan," which focuses an providing metadata education to new LIS professionals. The study found LIS programs increased their reliance an introductory courses to cover cataloging and metadata, but fewer programs than before had a cataloging course requirement. The knowledge of cataloging delivered in introductory courses was basic, and the coverage of metadata was limited to an overview. Cataloging courses showed similarity in coverage and practice and focused an print mater!als. Few cataloging educators provided exercises in metadata record creation using non-AACR standards. Advanced cataloging courses provided in-depth coverage of subject cataloging and the cataloging of nonbook resources, but offered very limited coverage of metadata. Few programs offered full courses an metadata, and even fewer offered advanced metadata courses. Metadata topics were well integrated into LIS curricula, but coverage of metadata courses varied from program to program, depending an the interests of instructors. Educators were forward-looking and agreed an the inclusion of specific knowledge and skills in metadata instruction. A series of actions were proposed to assist educators in providing students with competencies in cataloging and metadata.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.089585766 = product of:
  0.17917153 = sum of:
    0.17917153 = sum of:
      0.12307288 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12307288 = score(doc=3689,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.6033583 = fieldWeight in 3689, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3689)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 3689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=3689,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3689, 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=3689)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using grant funding, some prominent creators of digital libraries have promised users of networked resources certain kinds of access. Some of this access finds a ready-made vehicle in USMARC, some of it in the TEI header, some of it has yet to find the most appropriate vehicle. In its quest to provide access to what users need, the cataloging community can show leadership by exploring the strength inherent in a metadata-providing system like the TEI header.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.59-73

0.07838754 = product of:
  0.15677509 = sum of:
    0.15677509 = sum of:
      0.10768877 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10768877 = score(doc=599,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.52793854 = fieldWeight in 599, 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=599)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=599,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 599, 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=599)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Electronic Text Center at the University of Virginia has been mounting SGML full-text databases on-line since 1992, and actively building a user community around this Internet resource. Conceiving of what we do as firmly a library operation, we have sought to integrate the electronic text databases into the training, cataloging, preservation, and collection development areas of our library. Central to our selection criteria is the desire for softwareand platform-independent textsif it's not SGML, it's ephermeraland central to our cataloging endeavors is on SGML bibliographic record such as the Text Encoding Initiative header.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.75-84

0.07829362 = product of:
  0.15658724 = sum of:
    0.15658724 = sum of:
      0.10048859 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10048859 = score(doc=2686,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 2686, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2686)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 2686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=2686,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2686, 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=2686)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Metadata (structured information about an object or collection of objects) is increasingly important to libraries, archives, and museums. And although librarians are familiar with a number of issues that apply to creating and using metadata (e.g., authority control, controlled vocabularies, etc.), the world of metadata is nonetheless different than library cataloging, with its own set of challenges. Therefore, whether you are new to these concepts or quite experienced with classic cataloging, this short (20 pages) introductory paper on metadata can be helpful

Date

10. 9.2004 10:22:40

0.07519582 = product of:
  0.15039164 = sum of:
    0.15039164 = sum of:
      0.07105616 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07105616 = score(doc=2408,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
      0.07933547 = weight(_text_:22 in 2408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07933547 = score(doc=2408,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2408, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2408)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 1.2007 18:31:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) nos.3/4, S.43-58

0.06850691 = product of:
  0.13701382 = sum of:
    0.13701382 = sum of:
      0.08792751 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08792751 = score(doc=637,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 637, 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=637)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 637, 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=637)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In an interview, Diane I. Hillmann, an expert in metadata for digital libraries and currently co-principal investigator for the National Science Digital Library Registry based at Cornell University, discusses her education and career, and provides overviews and insights on metadata initiatives, including standards and models such as the widely adopted Dublin Core schema. She shares her professional interests from the early part of her career with communications, cataloging, and database production services; highlights key issues; and provides ideas and resources for managing changes in metadata standards and digital projects.

Date

2.12.2007 19:35:22

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 7(2004/05) nos.3/4, S.1-15

0.063577406 = product of:
  0.12715481 = sum of:
    0.12715481 = sum of:
      0.07105616 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07105616 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 126, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=126)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 126) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=126,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 126, 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=126)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.063577406 = product of:
  0.12715481 = sum of:
    0.12715481 = sum of:
      0.07105616 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07105616 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=751,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 751, 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=751)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

23. 1.2007 11:22:30

0.063577406 = product of:
  0.12715481 = sum of:
    0.12715481 = sum of:
      0.07105616 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07105616 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 1953, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1953)
      0.05609865 = weight(_text_:22 in 1953) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05609865 = score(doc=1953,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1953, 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=1953)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 5.2015 19:09:22

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 51(2013) no.6, S.655-674

0.05563023 = product of:
  0.11126046 = sum of:
    0.11126046 = sum of:
      0.06217414 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06217414 = score(doc=6128,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 6128, 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=6128)
      0.049086317 = weight(_text_:22 in 6128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049086317 = score(doc=6128,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 6128, 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=6128)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

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

0.048933513 = product of:
  0.09786703 = sum of:
    0.09786703 = sum of:
      0.06280537 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06280537 = score(doc=124,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.3079 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
      0.035061657 = weight(_text_:22 in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035061657 = score(doc=124,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cornell University Library (CUL) has developed a largely automated method for providing title-level catalog access to electronic journals made available through aggregator packages. CUL's technique for automated e-journal record creation and maintenance relies largely on the conversion of externally supplied metadata into streamlined, abbreviated-level MARC records. Unlike the Cooperative Online Serials Cataloging Program's recently implemented aggregator-neutral approach to e-journal cataloging, CUL's method involves the creation of a separate bibliographic record for each version of an e-journal title in order to facilitate automated record maintenance. An indexed local field indicates the aggregation to which each title belongs and enables machine manipulation of all the records associated with a specific aggregation. Information encoded in another locally defined field facilitates the identification of all of the library's e-journal titles and allows for the automatic generation of a Web-based title list of e-journals. CUL's approach to providing title-level catalog access to its e-journal aggregations involves a number of tradeoffs in which some elements of traditional bibliographic description (such as subject headings and linking fields) are sacrificed in the interest of timeliness and affordability. URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) and holdings information are updated on a regular basis by use of automated methods that save on staff costs.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.048933513 = product of:
  0.09786703 = sum of:
    0.09786703 = sum of:
      0.06280537 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06280537 = score(doc=4218,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.3079 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
      0.035061657 = weight(_text_:22 in 4218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035061657 = score(doc=4218,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4218, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4218)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The discovery and retrieval of video games in library and information systems is, by and large, dependent on a limited set of descriptive metadata. Noticeably missing from this metadata are classifications of visual style-despite the overwhelmingly visual nature of most video games and the interest in visual style among video game users. One explanation for this paucity is the difficulty in eliciting consistent judgements about visual style, likely due to subjective interpretations of terminology and a lack of demonstrable testing for coinciding judgements. This study presents a taxonomy of video game visual styles constructed from the findings of a 22-participant cataloging user study of visual styles. A detailed description of the study, and its value and shortcomings, are presented along with reflections about the challenges of cultivating consensus about visual style in video games. The high degree of overall agreement in the user study demonstrates the potential value of a descriptor like visual style and the use of a cataloging study in developing visual style taxonomies. The resulting visual style taxonomy, the methods and analysis described herein may help improve the organization and retrieval of video games and possibly other visual materials like graphic designs, illustrations, and animations.

0.047683053 = product of:
  0.095366105 = sum of:
    0.095366105 = sum of:
      0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053292118 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 3565) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=3565,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3565, 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=3565)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article recording evidence for data values in addition to the values themselves in bibliographic records and descriptive metadata is proposed, with the aim of improving the expressiveness and reliability of those records and metadata. Recorded evidence indicates why and how data values are recorded for elements. Recording the history of changes in data values is also proposed, with the aim of reinforcing recorded evidence. First, evidence that can be recorded is categorized into classes: identifiers of rules or tasks, action descriptions of them, and input and output data of them. Dates of recording values and evidence are an additional class. Then, the relative usefulness of evidence classes and also levels (i.e., the record, data element, or data value level) to which an individual evidence class is applied, is examined. Second, examples that can be viewed as recorded evidence in existing bibliographic records and current cataloging rules are shown. Third, some examples of bibliographic records and descriptive metadata with notes of evidence are demonstrated. Fourth, ways of using recorded evidence are addressed.

Date

18. 6.2005 13:16:22

0.047683053 = product of:
  0.095366105 = sum of:
    0.095366105 = sum of:
      0.053292118 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053292118 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
      0.042073987 = weight(_text_:22 in 5272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042073987 = score(doc=5272,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051756795 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5272, 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=5272)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

30. 5.2019 19:22:49

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 57(2019) no.1, S.24-36

0.0397216 = product of:
  0.0794432 = sum of:
    0.0794432 = product of:
      0.1588864 = sum of:
        0.1588864 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1588864 = score(doc=4183,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.7789323 = fieldWeight in 4183, 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=4183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A status of cataloging in Thailand shows a movement toward the use of information technology. The international standards for cataloging are being used and modified to effectively organize the information resources. An expanded scope of resources needed cataloging now covers cataloging the Web resources. The paper mentions Thailand's participation in the international working group on the use of metadata for libraries

0.03768322 = product of:
  0.07536644 = sum of:
    0.07536644 = product of:
      0.15073287 = sum of:
        0.15073287 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15073287 = score(doc=5457,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.73896 = fieldWeight in 5457, 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=5457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes challenges in organizing digital resources, the role of cataloging in such an effort, forces that threaten the future of cataloging, and responses from the field. It identifies ten issues for consideration when one designs a future cataloging education program. A model program providing four levels of expertise is presented to illustrate that future cataloging education will have a broader scope, incorporating metadata and various aspects of information organization. The program shows that LIS programs can meet different market demands to cover cataloging and metadata topics adequately to help students and ensure the central role of the profession in future information organization.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Education for cataloging and the organization of information: pitfalls and the pendulum; Part I

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 34(2002) nos.1/2, S.203-221

0.03768322 = product of:
  0.07536644 = sum of:
    0.07536644 = product of:
      0.15073287 = sum of:
        0.15073287 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15073287 = score(doc=5750,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.73896 = fieldWeight in 5750, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 58(2020) no.1, S.28-43

0.03768322 = product of:
  0.07536644 = sum of:
    0.07536644 = product of:
      0.15073287 = sum of:
        0.15073287 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15073287 = score(doc=674,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.73896 = fieldWeight in 674, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.1, S.53-57

0.03552808 = product of:
  0.07105616 = sum of:
    0.07105616 = product of:
      0.14211231 = sum of:
        0.14211231 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 6100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14211231 = score(doc=6100,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6966982 = fieldWeight in 6100, 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=6100)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Librarians create metadata including cataloging to manage and provide access to collections. Two recent technological developments, the explosion in electronic publishing and the conversion of metadata previously unavailable online into machine-readable form, are providing challenges to cataloging. Disparate types of resources, such as images and museum objects, archives, and library collections in print and electronic form, must be brought together in a coherent information environment. While catalogers exclusively cannot do these tasks, they and their skills are essential to bring order out of the chaos of the many different access systems

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(1999) no.1, S.43-54