Search (92 results, page 1 of 5)

0.054802343 = product of:
  0.10960469 = sum of:
    0.10960469 = product of:
      0.32881406 = sum of:
        0.32881406 = weight(_text_:3a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.32881406 = score(doc=230,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.4387947 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.7493574 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

https%3A%2F%2Ftannerlectures.utah.edu%2F_documents%2Fa-to-z%2Fp%2Fpopper80.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3f4QRTEH-OEBmoYr2J_c7H

0.035109267 = product of:
  0.07021853 = sum of:
    0.07021853 = product of:
      0.14043707 = sum of:
        0.14043707 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14043707 = score(doc=3871,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6884854 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.

0.03108707 = product of:
  0.06217414 = sum of:
    0.06217414 = product of:
      0.12434828 = sum of:
        0.12434828 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12434828 = score(doc=711,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.6096109 = fieldWeight in 711, 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=711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2019, Pepperdine Libraries acquired two virtual reality artworks by filmmaker and artist Paisley Smith: Homestay and Unceded Territories. To bring awareness to these pieces, Pepperdine Libraries added these works to the library catalog, creating bibliographic records for both films. There were many challenges and considerations in cataloging virtual reality art, including factors such as the nature of the work, the limits found in Resource Description and Access (RDA) and MARC, and providing access to these works. This paper discusses these topics, as well as provides recommendations for potential future standards for cataloging virtual works.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.5, p.492-509

0.026646059 = product of:
  0.053292118 = sum of:
    0.053292118 = product of:
      0.106584236 = sum of:
        0.106584236 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 713) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.106584236 = score(doc=713,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 713, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=713)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging practices, as exemplified by the five user tasks of the IFLA Library Reference Model, can support information literacy practices. The six frames of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education are used as lenses to examine the user tasks. Two themes emerge from this examination: context matters, and catalogers must tailor bibliographic descriptions to meet users' expectations and information needs. Catalogers need to solicit feedback from various user communities to reform cataloging practices to remain current and viable. Such conversations will enrich the catalog and enhance (reclaim?) its position as a primary tool for research and learning. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2021.1939828.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.5, p.442-476

0.024792334 = product of:
  0.049584668 = sum of:
    0.049584668 = product of:
      0.099169336 = sum of:
        0.099169336 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099169336 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:22:28

0.024792334 = product of:
  0.049584668 = sum of:
    0.049584668 = product of:
      0.099169336 = sum of:
        0.099169336 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.099169336 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38

0.024543159 = product of:
  0.049086317 = sum of:
    0.049086317 = product of:
      0.098172635 = sum of:
        0.098172635 = weight(_text_:22 in 6021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098172635 = score(doc=6021,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6021, 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=6021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Ariadne. 1999, no.22

0.023315303 = product of:
  0.046630606 = sum of:
    0.046630606 = product of:
      0.09326121 = sum of:
        0.09326121 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09326121 = score(doc=1172,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.4572082 = fieldWeight in 1172, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This think piece tells why the online library catalog fell from grace and why new directions pertaining to cataloging simplification and primary sources will not attract people back to the online catalog. It proposes an alternative direction that has greater likelihood of regaining the online catalog's lofty status and longtime users. Such a direction will require paradigm shifts in library cataloging and in the design and development of online library catalogs that heed catalog users' longtime demands for improvements to the searching experience. Our failure to respond accordingly may permanently exile scholarly and scientific information to a netherworld where no one searches while less reliable, accurate, and objective sources of information thrive in a paradise where people prefer to search for information.
The impetus for this essay is the library community's uncertainty regarding the present and future direction of the library catalog in the era of Google and mass digitization projects. The uncertainty is evident at the highest levels. Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress (LC), is struck by undergraduate students who favor digital resources over the online library catalog because such resources are available at anytime and from anywhere (Marcum, 2006). She suggests that "the detailed attention that we have been paying to descriptive cataloging may no longer be justified ... retooled catalogers could give more time to authority control, subject analysis, [and] resource identification and evaluation" (Marcum, 2006, 8). In an abrupt about-face, LC terminated series added entries in cataloging records, one of the few subject-rich fields in such records (Cataloging Policy and Support Office, 2006). Mann (2006b) and Schniderman (2006) cite evidence of LC's prevailing viewpoint in favor of simplifying cataloging at the expense of subject cataloging. LC commissioned Karen Calhoun (2006) to prepare a report on "revitalizing" the online library catalog. Calhoun's directive is clear: divert resources from cataloging mass-produced formats (e.g., books) to cataloging the unique primary sources (e.g., archives, special collections, teaching objects, research by-products). She sums up her rationale for such a directive, "The existing local catalog's market position has eroded to the point where there is real concern for its ability to weather the competition for information seekers' attention" (p. 10). At the University of California Libraries (2005), a task force's recommendations parallel those in Calhoun report especially regarding the elimination of subject headings in favor of automatically generated metadata. Contemplating these events prompted me to revisit the glorious past of the online library catalog. For a decade and a half beginning in the early 1980s, the online library catalog was the jewel in the crown when people eagerly queued at its terminals to find information written by the world's experts. I despair how eagerly people now embrace Google because of the suspect provenance of the information Google retrieves. Long ago, we could have added more value to the online library catalog but the only thing we changed was the catalog's medium. Our failure to act back then cost the online catalog the crown. Now that the era of mass digitization has begun, we have a second chance at redesigning the online library catalog, getting it right, coaxing back old users, and attracting new ones. Let's revisit the past, reconsidering missed opportunities, reassessing their merits, combining them with new directions, making bold decisions and acting decisively on them.

0.02220505 = product of:
  0.0444101 = sum of:
    0.0444101 = product of:
      0.0888202 = sum of:
        0.0888202 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2525) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0888202 = score(doc=2525,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43543637 = fieldWeight in 2525, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2525)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is evidence that many individuals and organizations in the library world do not support the work taking place to develop a next generation of the library cataloging rules. The authors describe the tensions existing between those advocating an incremental change to cataloging process and others who desire a bolder library entry into the digital era. Libraries have lost their place as primary information providers, surpassed by more agile (and in many cases wealthier) purveyors of digital information delivery services. Although libraries still manage materials that are not available elsewhere, the library's approach to user service and the user interface is not competing successfully against services like Amazon or Google. If libraries are to avoid further marginalization, they need to make a fundamental change in their approach to user services. The library's signature service, its catalog, uses rules for cataloging that are remnants of a long departed technology: the card catalog. Modifications to the rules, such as those proposed by the Resource Description and Access (RDA) development effort, can only keep us rooted firmly in the 20th, if not the 19th century. A more radical change is required that will contribute to the library of the future, re-imagined and integrated with the chosen workflow of its users.

0.021981878 = product of:
  0.043963756 = sum of:
    0.043963756 = product of:
      0.08792751 = sum of:
        0.08792751 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08792751 = score(doc=697,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 697, 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=697)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The content of master's programs accredited by the American Library Association was examined to assess the status of knowledge organization (KO) as a subject in current training. Data collected show that KO remains very visible in a majority of programs, mainly in the form of required and electives courses focusing on descriptive cataloging, classification, and metadata. Observed tendencies include, however, the recent elimination of the required KO course in several programs, the reality that one third of KO electives listed in course catalogs have not been scheduled in the past three years, and the fact that two-thirds of those teaching KO specialize in other areas of information science.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.6, p.576-596

0.021036994 = product of:
  0.042073987 = sum of:
    0.042073987 = product of:
      0.084147975 = sum of:
        0.084147975 = weight(_text_:22 in 3895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084147975 = score(doc=3895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3895, 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=3895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

24. 8.2005 19:20:22

0.021036994 = product of:
  0.042073987 = sum of:
    0.042073987 = product of:
      0.084147975 = sum of:
        0.084147975 = weight(_text_:22 in 4156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084147975 = score(doc=4156,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4156, 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=4156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 3.2020 14:08:22

0.01776404 = product of:
  0.03552808 = sum of:
    0.03552808 = product of:
      0.07105616 = sum of:
        0.07105616 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 2944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07105616 = score(doc=2944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20397975 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 2944, 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=2944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This issue of Jlis.it is focused on RDA, Resource Description and Access. In light of increasing international acceptance of this new cataloging content standard, the editors of Jlis.it wish to capture the background of how RDA came to be and the implications of its implementation at this time. This special issue offers a wide overview on the new guidelines from their making to their spreading around the world.

0.017530829 = product of:
  0.035061657 = sum of:
    0.035061657 = product of:
      0.070123315 = sum of:
        0.070123315 = weight(_text_:22 in 5865) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070123315 = score(doc=5865,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5865, 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=5865)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2017 12:51:57

0.017530829 = product of:
  0.035061657 = sum of:
    0.035061657 = product of:
      0.070123315 = sum of:
        0.070123315 = weight(_text_:22 in 5846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070123315 = score(doc=5846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5846, 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=5846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4. 5.2020 17:22:40

0.017530829 = product of:
  0.035061657 = sum of:
    0.035061657 = product of:
      0.070123315 = sum of:
        0.070123315 = weight(_text_:22 in 5906) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070123315 = score(doc=5906,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5906, 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=5906)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

4. 5.2020 17:22:28

0.017530829 = product of:
  0.035061657 = sum of:
    0.035061657 = product of:
      0.070123315 = sum of:
        0.070123315 = weight(_text_:22 in 5907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070123315 = score(doc=5907,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 5907, 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=5907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2020 19:11:24

0.017530829 = product of:
  0.035061657 = sum of:
    0.035061657 = product of:
      0.070123315 = sum of:
        0.070123315 = weight(_text_:22 in 82) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070123315 = score(doc=82,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 82, 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=82)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2020 19:16:24

0.017530829 = product of:
  0.035061657 = sum of:
    0.035061657 = product of:
      0.070123315 = sum of:
        0.070123315 = weight(_text_:22 in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070123315 = score(doc=236,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 236, 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=236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

7. 5.2021 22:10:24

0.017530829 = product of:
  0.035061657 = sum of:
    0.035061657 = product of:
      0.070123315 = sum of:
        0.070123315 = weight(_text_:22 in 1001) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070123315 = score(doc=1001,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18124348 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051756795 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1001, 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=1001)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2023, H.1, S.22-25